Looks like I'll be consulting this site b4 making any more Hi-Rez purchases

Johnny2Bad

Johnny2Bad

Audioholic Chief
I have transcribed *a lot* of LPs and, yes, even cassette tapes, into 16/44.1 format over the years (haven't done one for about 10 years now) so I could enjoy music that wasn't, and probably never will be, available in digital form, in the car.

The most common setting to create a file that had zero digital clipping yet maintained maximum average level (so that the perceived loudness doesn't change from disc to disc) would be to Normalize @ -13dB RMS, or put another way, about 13 dB of actual dynamic range.

The chart you linked to indicates -13dB as the best fidelity on the "transition" scale and -14dB as "good", so I guess as far as my experience goes with well-recorded commercial albums, I would tend to agree with their conclusions.

You can find particularly well mastered LPs that require perhaps 18dB of headroom but it's relatively rare. As for finding that on a (non-Classical) CD, well ... good luck. You'll need it.
 
djreef

djreef

Audioholic Chief
I have transcribed *a lot* of LPs and, yes, even cassette tapes, into 16/44.1 format over the years (haven't done one for about 10 years now) so I could enjoy music that wasn't, and probably never will be, available in digital form, in the car.

The most common setting to create a file that had zero digital clipping yet maintained maximum average level (so that the perceived loudness doesn't change from disc to disc) would be to Normalize @ -13dB RMS, or put another way, about 13 dB of actual dynamic range.

The chart you linked to indicates -13dB as the best fidelity on the "transition" scale and -14dB as "good", so I guess as far as my experience goes with well-recorded commercial albums, I would tend to agree with their conclusions.

You can find particularly well mastered LPs that require perhaps 18dB of headroom but it's relatively rare. As for finding that on a (non-Classical) CD, well ... good luck. You'll need it.
Ya, but the big bitch I have is the markup for an inherently inferior transfer. I own a few of these and new they were squashed, but I had no idea how badly.

Take a look at the new Anthrax -

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/104557

I mean, c'mon Man! What's the point?

DJ
 
Johnny2Bad

Johnny2Bad

Audioholic Chief
Yes, it's a bit ironic that if you buy a "format re-purchase" CD (released sometime in the 1980's and a variant of an album originally released on LP only, in other words before 1984 on LP and after 1984 on CD) that it will probably be a straight digitizing with the master tape's dynamic range unmolested. Versus buying a "Digitally Remastered" edition, released probably after Y2K, with the dynamics squashed down to maybe 5 dB, and quite possibly 1 or 2 dB. Worse, maybe hundreds of instances of digital clipping encoded on the disc.

Don't be afraid of the Remainders' Bin ... those $3 CDs with the cheezy 1-page graphics that are AAD transcriptions of the master tape (not the LP, but the same as what was cut to the LP) are quite possibly better 16/44.1's than the fancy Box Set Remastered Editions they are pushing out these days.

Finally the Record Companies figured out that people over 35 don't buy much music compared to younger people but are the only ones buying the highest profit versions ... actual CDs (they are a little dense that way ... always the last to figure out what everyone on the planet already knows). So they are releasing ever incresing editions of pre-1990 music, often in Box Sets, with those things in them ... what are they called again? ... oh Yeah ... CDs. But they are the Remastered versions, which usually are salvos in the war from the bad side.

There is hope; however. With regulations mandating (finally!!) that commercials cannot have perceived loudness (essentially, RMS levels) higher than the program material on television, broadcast radio, etc what is happening is that enabling software and protocols are being developed (and are in use) that moderate the need for "loudness war" audio. This is happening worldwide: the EU, various States like Australia, New Zeland, not to mention USA and Canada. So, we just might see a little backing off of the rediculous compression practices when mastering music.

I'm not saying the war has been won by the good side, but some of the battles are going our way, at last.
 
Last edited:
djreef

djreef

Audioholic Chief
For more on how some see an end to the Loudness Wars because of a unintended consequence of legislation to moderate the apparent loudness of commercials, see this Sound On Sound magazine article:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb14/articles/loudness-war.htm
I hope this takes hold. Enough is enough already.

It just blows my mind how masterers have squandered the wonderful new gifts available to them for the last 20 years - trading the ability to get the listener one step closer to "being there" for $.

DJ
 
S

sterling shoote

Audioholic Field Marshall
I don't hear the sort of dynamic abomination alluded to here. After all, rock and pop, for the most part are absent dynamic range. It's the nature of the art. Compression, on the other hand, is essential for broadcast, even for classical works for a multitude of reasons. Just because we have digital mediums that allow for dynamic range does not mean it is necessary to exploit it. Kind of reminds me of the first Stereo LPs, the ping pong effect was a good demonstration for the technology but not at all necessary to appreciate the technology.
 
djreef

djreef

Audioholic Chief
I don't hear the sort of dynamic abomination alluded to here. After all, rock and pop, for the most part are absent dynamic range. It's the nature of the art. Compression, on the other hand, is essential for broadcast, even for classical works for a multitude of reasons. Just because we have digital mediums that allow for dynamic range does not mean it is necessary to exploit it. Kind of reminds me of the first Stereo LPs, the ping pong effect was a good demonstration for the technology but not at all necessary to appreciate the technology.
Really? You don't hear the difference? The depth of field differences between the newer remasters and the OG pressings are like night and day to me. I want as close to the actual event as I can possibly get - I like hearing the venue, and the space btween the instruments, whether they be actual or artificially produced. So much so that I've started picking up some of the older CDs to compare with the remastered versions. So far the older versions are crushing the newer ones where emotional connection and sheer drama are concerned. I like my music in 3D.

I see what you mean with the newer releases. I dunno, I can see how some folks could actually prefer the newer releases as the music is right on top of you. An artifact of the iPod generation, I guess. If you dig the newer dancy type of pop recordings (like Taylor Swift, Maroon5, etc) this might be appealing. It's a shame, really that the life of work has been artificially altered through the mastering process to a more emotionally bereft wall of sound.

DJ
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top