I was an expert witness in an audio trial....

[Swerd]

One explanation for your experience is that there is actually little or no difference between the versions.

With Fremer giving an impassioned account of what to expect, placebo could be very prominent in the jury's perception. It was not a blind test.

I certainly agree with KEW. Fremer's expert testimony may have expertly set up the jurors to belive they heard large differences ($10 million differences) between the two differently mastered versions of the song.

I doubt this is placebo. The effects of compression and brickwalling are real and can be measured but it doesn't mean that all audio systems or ears can detect it's effects.

There is a simple way to determine if these effects of compression and brickwalling are audible. Run listening tests under proper blind conditions. It really doesn't matter if these differences can be measured and displayed visually (as shown above) unless they can be heard.

 

[Bucknekked]

You don't need golden ears to hear dynamic compression. Anyone can hear it, once they know what to listen for.

Another thing about dynamic compression, it doesn't absolutely have to happen over all the elements of the tracks. It could be applied to only the percussion, or percussion and guitars, but not affect vocals as much. You have to listen for relative levels of loudness between the individual instruments.

Some dynamic compression is fine, and even necessary in some cases, but to blast every single moment of the track to full scale is just awful. That should only be done when the music is deliberately trying to be obnoxious, like punk or thrash metal.

shadyj
What you say is true, but this is my first hands on experiment. Having folks tell you about it is one thing, trying to discern it for yourself is another. This is my first experiment taking two versions of a musical work and trying to hear the differences where those differences have been called out and accepted by an audience. To those who haven't tried it, it sounds painfully easy. In reality, it does take some instruction and some coaching for many items.

I have managed to hear the documented differences. I am going to have to be happy with that.

 

[KEW]

shadyj
What you say is true, but this is my first hands on experiment. Having folks tell you about it is one thing, trying to discern it for yourself is another. This is my first experiment taking two versions of a musical work and trying to hear the differences where those differences have been called out and accepted by an audience. To those who haven't tried it, it sounds painfully easy. In reality, it does take some instruction and some coaching for many items.

I have managed to hear the documented differences. I am going to have to be happy with that.

I think the time delay between versions can be critical.

 

[Bucknekked]

I think the time delay between versions can be critical.

KEW
you have expressed concerns over Fremer's ability to seriously sway the jury and get them pumped to hear differences. I can agree with that especially if there's a difference to be heard. I think it might be dicey if there were no differences to be heard, but with actual differences, he may have carried the day because he certainly convinced me I was going to hear "big" differences.

I know I expected more difference than I am hearing. I also expected it to be easier and more obvious.

The time delay difference is way more pronounced that I would have ever imagined. You hear about it when people tell you DBT is the only way to go because you can defeat the time delay with the test setup. I never thought it was that big of a deal, but when you are trying to actually hear differences, the speed at which you "forget" exactly what the prior listening showed you is quite a pain in the ass.

I learned a lot about my own ability to hear by trying this out. I am not as astute a listener as I would have thought. I can be taught or coached, so there's at least a small positive. I definitely do not have golden ears. Just really good looking ears

 

[<eargiant]

There is a simple way to determine if these effects of compression and brickwalling are audible. Run listening tests under proper blind conditions. It really doesn't matter if these differences can be measured and displayed visually (as shown above) unless they can be heard.

Double Blind tests for this too? Really?? Of course DR compression is audible! Why do you think the producers and labels employ this practice in the first place?

"Volume wins any contest except audiophile of course, except somebody that actually cares what it sounds like."
Richard Dodd
Recording/ Mastering Engineer

"I hate it, I more than hate it, I'm disgusted with it."
Niko Bolas
Audio Engineer

"I really hate it."
Steve Marcantonio
Audio Engineer

Funny that Producer in the group liked it. Guess why...

"There's a certain level of - kinda power involved, to the drums and to the guitar, everything, everything's the loudest thing in the mix I like to say"
John Fields
Producer

Think about what he said for a minute, "...everything's the loudest thing in the mix..." that statement perfectly describes what the loss of natural dynamic range is all about.

 

[Bucknekked]

BTW, his comment that "...everything's the loudest thing in the mix..." perfectly describes what the loss of natural dynamic range is all about.

Loss of dynamic range. there's an idea only audiophiles care about anymore I'm afraid. I must say it takes a wee bit of patience to listen to a song that has a wide dynamic range if you mix in it with songs that are bonkers brick walled.

Here are a couple of examples that I would offer up to see if anyone agrees. These are songs I believe have either a wide range, or a very limited one (depending on which song it is). If you agree/disagree, I'd be interested in your opinion.

WIDE DYNAMIC RANGE SONG: SRV TIN PAN ALLEY
On the CD version, there's a wee little brush of the cymbal that goes throughout the song. Barely there.
Contrast that to the rest of the song. You can hear both the barely there, and the guitar.

FULL MONTY LOUD ALL THE TIME SONG: SANTANA MIGRA
I'm not saying the recording is bad, its a really fun song. But there no peaks or valleys or contrast.

WIDE DYNAMIC RANGE SONG: LYLE LOVETT SHE's ALREADY MADE UP HER MIND
No explanation needed.

For good comparisons, I'd recommend the CD version of any of the listed titles. But, its hard to mix them in a playlist because the bonkers ones just clobber you and then ones with a quiet range sound far away by direct comparison.

 

[<eargiant]

Loss of dynamic range. there's an idea only audiophiles care about anymore I'm afraid. I must say it takes a wee bit of patience to listen to a song that has a wide dynamic range if you mix in it with songs that are bonkers brick walled.

Here are a couple of examples that I would offer up to see if anyone agrees. These are songs I believe have either a wide range, or a very limited one (depending on which song it is). If you agree/disagree, I'd be interested in your opinion.

WIDE DYNAMIC RANGE SONG: SRV TIN PAN ALLEY
On the CD version, there's a wee little brush of the cymbal that goes throughout the song. Barely there.
Contrast that to the rest of the song. You can hear both the barely there, and the guitar.

FULL MONTY LOUD ALL THE TIME SONG: SANTANA MIGRA
I'm not saying the recording is bad, its a really fun song. But there no peaks or valleys or contrast.

WIDE DYNAMIC RANGE SONG: LYLE LOVETT SHE's ALREADY MADE UP HER MIND
No explanation needed.

For good comparisons, I'd recommend the CD version of any of the listed titles. But, its hard to mix them in a playlist because the bonkers ones just clobber you and then ones with a quiet range sound far away by direct comparison.

Bucknekked, check to see if the player you use has a loudness normalization setting. It will keep all the files that you play at a similar volume level. I never use loudness normalization myself because I like to play the files "as-is" and hear them without any enhancement/alteration of any kind. Besides, for me listening is an active, hands-on endeavor, not a background pastime. I don't mind manually adjusting the volume when needed.

As for DR compression, you're on the right track. I agree with you on Santana's Migra (Supernatural -recorded ~1999). On the version I have, Dynamic Range (R128) is only 2.7 LU!! Granted, while the track doesn't have a wide range of highs and lows, that DR range is waaaay too low for that recording.

Contrast that with Santana's Singing Winds, Crying Beasts (Abraxas - recorded ~1970) which has a Dynamic Range of 14.2 LU. You can hear the clarity, blackness and space, the lack of sounds-if that makes sense (aside from the analog tape hiss).

This might be good time to point out that a very high dynamic range is only possible if it actually exists in the original material. Singing Winds has a lot of very quiet almost silent parts as well as several high end flourishes, hence- high dynamic range (as long as it was allowed to remain in the recording).

On the other hand, Migra is a song that lacks quiet passages so it probably would never have a very high DR. With that said, the version I have does sound like it was a victim of Dynamic Range compression.

Don't worry, if the two versions that you have of MJ's Bad are actually the original and the remaster version, I'll be able to help you identify the differences. I just need some time to actually document some of the obvious ones so that I can share them with you.

BTW, let me know if you have loudness normalization and headphones which may help rule some things out.

 

[Swerd]

Double Blind tests for this too? Really?? Of course DR compression is audible! Why do you think the producers and labels employ this practice in the first place?

You have assumed dynamic range compression is always audible to the listener at home. I don't doubt that it probably can significantly change the experience for the listener, but I don't see any effort to demonstrate such audible differences. No one can claim something is audibly different unless listening tests actually show it.

You quote various recording engineers and producers, but that is testimony, not a demonstration of audibility.

Earlier in this thread graphics were posted showing measured differences in sound tracks with differing dynamic range. Were those differences electronic measurements of voltage or dB, or were they acoustic measurements of spl? That wasn't made clear. Those graphics certainly visibly show large differences, but they cannot show if those differences are heard by listeners. Only listening tests can do that.

Blind listening tests, done with controls for false negative and false positive responses, would be enough to show whether the differences are audible.