Petition for High Definition Music Downloads.

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Personally, I found the same as my findings before. As Rull's said, the soundstage is bigger, but the biggest difference to me, is that the music sound more natural and fluid. More enjoyable as it just comes across as effortless.


Yes!
Exactly why I also like 24bit, simply sounds more natural. I have talked about this on several occasions with electronic and proper musicians, and it is hard to really point to one big difference compared to 16bit, other than "it just sounds more natural/It just sounds better". This is also my experience.

... The different sample rates and bit depths compare fairly similar by numbers, and I can certainly understand why one would claim that there is no difference looking at numbers alone. And I agree, but it sounds better with 24bit 96kHz than 16bit 44.1kHz.
 
Originally Posted by jcx
on a tour of a mastering studio the principal engineer said that he usually provided 2 or 3 mixes - one with high dynamics and only employing "artistic" levels compression on a few instruments - another at higher overall compression that he still felt had acceptable dynamics and one mix at the Loudness War level of compression - he is still waiting for artists/producers to choose any of the less compressed version for release - even after they've reviewed all versions and agreed that the more dynamic mixes are superior - they are just not perceived as "marketable"


Thank you for making my point JCX. For all of those who like to lay the blame squarely on the mixing or mastering engineer - here is what we go through, and here is how wrong you are.
 
yep, sorry soundtrackmixer, you cant have, because its widespread, not just rock and pop its everywhere, records by artists who I used to admire for their quality of production have been ruined by overzealous compression and if you are all so up in arms about it, do something about it, dont just pass the buck

I disagree. It is out there, but it is not everywhere. I don't own a single classical, jazz, or gospel album that is dynamically crushed. Recordings designed for car listening(majority pop and rock) have this problem. Classical music does not have this problem, because Audiophiles don't do their critical listening in cars, and the recordings are not designed to be listened to in cars.

Sorry, but I don't pass the buck, I just recognize who controls it -and it ain't the mixing or mastering guy. We don't get the last word on what goes out the door or the whole loudness war would have never happened in the first place.

I have done my part. I do not accept any recording that has its dynamics altered. You bring me the raw mix, I balance and master it. I know many mastering engineers who have taken the same policy.
 
In my humble opinion, the petition should be going after recording engineering schools and the professional recording industry (like recording.org for example) that target the folks actually doing the recording, mixing, and mastering. I understand that artists/producers/record companies greatly influence, but it is still recording/mixing/mastering engineers with hands on the compressor/limiters...

And you would be shooting everywhere but at the target. Much like Sy, you don't work in this industry, or you would not make such a suggestion. As a member of AES, I do not know a single mixing or mastering guy that sets out to make a bad record. But I do know many who do great work only to have some marketing or PR guy(or woman) tell them they cannot use it as it is. It is not marketable to them, and it cannot be played back on a ipod or in somebody's car(that is their target). When I make my own recordings(as I do every sunday at church), I have the last word on how it will sound. When somebody brings me a recording to master, THEY or their PR people have the last word. I do not know why this is so difficult for those around here to understand this. It is not rocket science.
 
And you would be shooting everywhere but at the target. Much like Sy, you don't work in this industry, or you would not make such a suggestion. As a member of AES, I do not know a single mixing or mastering guy that sets out to make a bad record. But I do know many who do great work only to have some marketing or PR guy(or woman) tell them they cannot use it as it is. It is not marketable to them, and it cannot be played back on a ipod or in somebody's car(that is their target). When I make my own recordings(as I do every sunday at church), I have the last word on how it will sound. When somebody brings me a recording to master, THEY or their PR people have the last word. I do not know why this is so difficult for those around here to understand this. It is not rocket science.

Actually I am in the industry and a recording/mixing engineer. I started over 30 years ago and was part of the digital audio revolution. Some of my work was recently inducted in the Western Canada Music Hall of Fame: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONTrSUHLIK0&feature=player_embedded I am also an audiophile and write a guest blog at http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/

But who cares. The point I am making Soundtrackmixer is that for budding young recording/mixing/mastering engineers, a petition like this, that I support and have sent to all of my musician friends and audio engineers, is to provide awareness and education. Awareness and education to future generations that their voice does matter (with their hands off the compressors/limiters :) and can change the industry.

All the best.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Although I'm now in the video biz, no longer audio, I find that clients rarely have the slightest idea what they really want, or why. Unless the client is another technician who has to work with the video. Even then, it can be hit or miss. So I certainly understand that part of it.

Example: I have an upcoming 4 camera shoot for a gala ball. Of course I planned to shoot it all high-def, Apple ProRes, either 720P or 1080i as the client (a TV station) prefers. What do they want? Standard def. Yep, 480i, probably anamorphic. They claim it's easier to sell. Really? After all the local TV stations have spent millions to switch over to HD, they still want SD? Are you sure? Oh, well, you can only try so hard to talk people into better stuff for the same price.

But that doesn't mean I'll give up trying! :D
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Could be, I don't know. The price wasn't the question, the format was. Just seems strange to me.

If I can have my music in 24/96 format for the same price as getting it on cassette tape, I know what I'll choose. But you never know what other folks want. :xeye:
 
Actually I am in the industry and a recording/mixing engineer. I started over 30 years ago and was part of the digital audio revolution. Some of my work was recently inducted in the Western Canada Music Hall of Fame: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONTrSUHLIK0&feature=player_embedded I am also an audiophile and write a guest blog at http://www.computeraudiophile.com/blogs/mitchco/

But who cares. The point I am making Soundtrackmixer is that for budding young recording/mixing/mastering engineers, a petition like this, that I support and have sent to all of my musician friends and audio engineers, is to provide awareness and education. Awareness and education to future generations that their voice does matter (with their hands off the compressors/limiters :) and can change the industry.

All the best.

You are preaching to the choir on this, most industry based engineers already know what you are saying. Send this to the record company Executives, PR and marketing people, and the producers. THEY MAKE THE FINAL DECISIONS ON HOW RECORDS ARE GOING TO SOUND. If I drum this point any harder, I will destroy the drum.


If you are really in the industry, then you should no better than to post this kind of comment.
 
On a somewhat lighter note, I have a brief anecdote. I recently was given several free downloads from billboard.com. They were in mp3 format, though they were all 256k & 320k bitrates. What I found a little interesting was that they offered many legacy tracks with a choice of original master and remastered (which I construed as "took the compression hammer to") files. The first Crosby/Nash album comes to mind, but there were many more.
It was Jan Didden here on the forum that alerted me to the fact that AC/DC remasters were being given the compression treatment. I just can't understand that - I have never considered AC/DC and subtlety at the same time, and don't understand the reasoning other than a "this is how we do it now" explanation.
That segues into my penultimate comment, which is that while debate may swell over who should be petitioned, I think it really needs to be a broad sweep. From gray suits to listeners, anything that moves them toward a better appreciation... no, respect... for the music is a noble endeavor. I don't believe that catering to FM and auto stereo is a valid motivation. FM has long used its own compression, and auto stereo can give reasonably hi-fi sound.
Finally, I've started to think that loudness wars may have a lot to do with my preference for older recordings. Too much of the new stuff has a 2-dimensional sameness to it, and it just doesn't move me. In fact I tire of it rather quickly. If those other masters exist (as noted in a previous post), get them on a server and at least give consumers a choice. "This is how we do it, and that's how it is" is always a crock, to put it mildly. To have recordings stomped on while quality playback equipment becomes more and more accessible is a damned shame, and I'm sure I'm not alone in that sentiment.
 
Speaking of AC/DC, Bob Katz, mastering engineer, has a nice collection of dynamic pop/rock recordings on his honor roll: http://www.digido.com/media/honor-roll.html The Ted Jensen remastered Back in Black is a good rock example of maximum loudness that suites the music, but does not go over the line of being totally compressed/limited.

Bob also proposes, “How To Make Better Recordings in the 21st Century - An Integrated Approach to Metering, Monitoring, and Leveling Practices.” http://www.digido.com/how-to-make-better-recordings-part-2.html it’s an excellent read.

It appears that pop/rock mixes and masters from the early 80’s to the mid 90’s did not suffer much from “loudness war”. If you look up the DR values for Dire Straits – Brothers in Arms (DR16), Peter Gabriel – Security (DR14), The Police – Synchronicity (DR15), to name a few, have outstanding dynamic ranges, even at 16/44.

Fast forward today and we see companies like HDTracks are offering high resolution versions, some of questionable value. Over at Computer Audiophile, there is a forum on Music Analysis – the objective and subjective: http://www.computeraudiophile.com/f14-music-analysis-objective-and-subjective/

Before downloading a “high resolution audiophile quality” album, it might be worth checking the forum to see that some sound fantastic (like 24/192 Cat Steven’s Tea for the Tillerman) to just plain embarrassing like the 24/96 version of Aerosmith’s Get a Grip that is so compressed/limited that it gets a DR of 7.

I find this video of explaining and visualizing just what the loudness war is in less than 2 minutes to be highly educational. Even with low resolution YouTube audio over cheap computer speakers, one can clearly hear the difference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3Gmex_4hreQ

The point is that the loudness war is mostly about the compression and limiting of the music content and not so much about the format the content is delivered in.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Some compression and/or limiting is good. Just finished working a Gladys Knight show. She can really belt. The Front of House guy did a great job, nice mix. I know he was using tube compressors, but I just wish he had clamped down a little more on her voice. The band mix was great, but a strong singer with a mic can get way too dynamic. Ouch!

Some music needs judicious compression. What it does not need is all the life squeezed out of it, as is the current trend. Does everything have to be loud, all the time?
 
Some compression and/or limiting is good. Just finished working a Gladys Knight show. She can really belt. The Front of House guy did a great job, nice mix. I know he was using tube compressors, but I just wish he had clamped down a little more on her voice. The band mix was great, but a strong singer with a mic can get way too dynamic. Ouch!

I had this same problem when I was on the road with Patti Labelle. Her voice is so powerful, that I had to often compress her at 7-8:1 just to keep her from blowing peoples hair off. It all depended on how her voice was doing that particular night. On a good voice night, I almost had to use the compressor as a limiter to keep her vocals in check. LOL. When Gladys comes to either Yoshi's or the Greek theater, I have the same problem with her, and this woman is in her 60's!!!!

Some music needs judicious compression. What it does not need is all the life squeezed out of it, as is the current trend. Does everything have to be loud, all the time?

Compression does not really squeeze the life out of mixes. Limiters are FAR more guilty of that. This is used by mastering engineers to "normalize" the mix(make everything loud and even). People have often thought compressing was the culprit of the loudness wars, but it was really the abuse of limiters that was the problem.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
I had this same problem when I was on the road with Patti Labelle.
Funny, we were talking about Patti last night. We still have a mirror ball hanging in the office from those shows. Patti has to have her mirror ball. :D Gladys got a 6' tall crystal chandelier. Looked great with the lights.

People have often thought compressing was the culprit of the loudness wars, but it was really the abuse of limiters that was the problem.
Yeah, I suppose both are used. The result is very limited dynamic range.
Do you think it's the limiters that give that almost flat top waveform we see so much these days? Just slam it up and limit it?
 
Funny, we were talking about Patti last night. We still have a mirror ball hanging in the office from those shows. Patti has to have her mirror ball. :D Gladys got a 6' tall crystal chandelier. Looked great with the lights.

Both are class acts that is for sure.


Yeah, I suppose both are used. The result is very limited dynamic range.
Do you think it's the limiters that give that almost flat top waveform we see so much these days? Just slam it up and limit it?

It is the abuse of limiters that has caused the loudness wars. There is no way compression could do that kind of damage to an overall mix. While compression can decrease dynamic range, it cannot do so at the level that limiters can. Limiters allow you to chop off the waveform, and increase the level of the overall mix without overloading the D/A converters.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.