Many will know that over the last 20 or so years the average level of recorded CD's has crept up to the point that the source material is purposely distorted in order to raise the apparent loudness of the CD you buy. This has shifted some folks impression of what sounds both good and normal.

Whilst mooching around on Youtube watching mixing and mastering videos I came across THIS example which I think nicely highlights the issue but also offers a warning to those you assume that recently remastered, either digitally or otherwise, will necessarily be better (of course some are).

If you are a fan of modern chart music and are used to listening to current CD releases you may find you prefer the remastered version in this example and you may think the original sounds thin & weedy.

I'm of the old school and like my music to have contrast, dynamics and variation - the original version for me!

What do you think ...................

(ps playing on decent speakers or headphones will illustrate the full extent of the differences, don't expect to much if you listen through your laptop speakers)

I have both the LP from 1986 and the CD from 2006. The LP is way better.

Oh dear. The settings on my Beomaster 8000 are: Bass +3, Treble +5 and Loudness ON. Sometimes I even switch in a Cona from the Speaker 2 outlets...

Does this mean I'm cloth-eared?

It depends - do you have the filters set to off!

Surely one listens to music as one wants - I prefer level playback and lots of dynamics. If you like lots of bass and treble, that is your choice. I like midrange - that is why I have the speakers that I do. Plenty of midrange, no top or bottom!

I have no problem telling the problem on these Lenovo SL500 speakers (far from the worst laptops in that area, though). The cue points don't quite seem to match between audio & video.

Bought the CD in 1985 as one of my first. Sad to hear that even that has been ruined.

Surprised no one has come up with the marketing ploy of selling remastered CD's in separate categories for listening to on Hi Fi equipment (with dynamic contrast) and on MP3 players (loud and flat)!

Graham

Old school man myself. Just had a quick listen to Puncher's link and even on the iMac the difference is quite big...

Enormous differences. 

A lot of info at this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_wars

Details get drowned out.

What's really worth watching out for are "remasters." You'd be in error to think that they have to be better than the LP or early CD releases, most of the time. I've seen several analyses of remasters where the dynamics are completely gone.

All you have to do with the "early" recordings is to turn up the volume on your system, and then you get the full dynamics. It's distressing though, occasionally you'll find comments, for instance on Amazon-reviews or even in reviews in music magazines, complaining that they had to adjust the volume up and down on a record, because the difference was so big between the soft and the powerful passages ... (sigh)

Music can go from pppppp to ffffff -- then it's a shame to be left with p-f.

Abba, The Visitors. First DDD (Digital recording/Digital mixing/Digital mastering) CD in 1981. Great dynamics, full range, just put up the volume and enjoy. The 1997 remaster was bad, the 2001 remaster worse, the 2005 remaster a total disaster. Flatter sound, less dynamics and even added noise reduction on DDD masters! The first years, transferring analogue masters to cd's was a direct dubbing proces of the old tapes, not much fiddling with the sound. Nowadays they just throw to much ''digital enhancement'' over the old material. The first years of CD production also delivered much better quality in durability. Better plastics used and better reflective coating. They last forever.

Yes, I have quite a few CDs from the 80s which I'm pleased I chose to hang on to, and I'm doing what Tim Jarman describes here: going hunting for older CDs of my favorite artists. (Not all are better, but as you describe, don't trust the remasters).

http://beomic.beocentral.com/whats-happened-to-cd/

soundproof:

Yes, I have quite a few CDs from the 80s which I'm pleased I chose to hang on to, and I'm doing what Tim Jarman describes here: going hunting for older CDs of my favorite artists. (Not all are better, but as you describe, don't trust the remasters).

 

http://beomic.beocentral.com/whats-happened-to-cd/

Thanks for the link Soundproof. Tim Jarman gives a great summary of where the CD has been and where it's gone/ going.

Graham

j0hnbarker:

Oh dear. The settings on my Beomaster 8000 are: Bass +3, Treble +5 and Loudness ON. Sometimes I even switch in a Cona from the Speaker 2 outlets...

Does this mean I'm cloth-eared?

Whew! I'm not alone!

My Beomaster 4500 is presently set to bass +2, treble +5, I leave loundness off in the S.STORE but often turn it on, all through my Beolab 5000 panels and twin Conas.

I love detail in my listening and lots of richness.

I just ran sound for a church gathering about an hour ago and it was all midrange. I was tuning the whole time... I understand its totally different, but still - GAG!

It's probably worth noting that the 'Loudness Wars' to which Puncher is referring (in the opening post of this thread) is actually not about the 'loudness' switch or tone controls on your stereo, but instead the way in which a large proportion of modern recordings have been 'mashed' to make absolutely everything the same volume. Definitely worth watching the video.

In terms of bass and treble controls, IMO the best way to think of turning up the bass and treble is that you're actually turning down the midrange. The midrange is by far the most important frequency band from a musical perspective, as it's where all the harmonic information of almost all the instruments you'll be listening to lies. Try listening to a recording through just a tweeter, you just won't be able to tell what's going on. Same with listening through just a woofer. Almost all vocal information sits in the midrange. It's where your ear is most sensitive to details in the sound.

By boosting the treble+bass, you're removing a lot of this information. It's easy to become accustomed to a bass/treble heavy sound, but I know the best bits of my music all take up space in the midband...

FWIW, turning down the midrange tends to make it much easier to talk over the music, as the music sits 'either side' of your voice instead of taking up the same frequency bands (and making you talk louder). Hence why the best systems for background music often tend to be Bose Lifestyle systems - no midrange at all!

Alex:

... turning down the midrange tends to make it much easier to talk over the music, as the music sits 'either side' of your voice instead of taking up the same frequency bands (and making you talk louder). 

How true. Some like to talk over music, and some like to listen to music -- you can often tell which is which by how their music systems are tuned.

As Alex points out, this is not so much about how your system is set up, as what it gets to work with.

You can probably make pasta sauce using only Heinz ketchup and no vegetables -- maybe sprinkle some salt and ground pepper on for effect, when you serve. But it's not really pasta sauce, is it?

Then there are pasta sauces that have been made over several days, according to very specific family recipes.

A lot of the music released on CDs today goes the Heinz ketchup route, and that's the point of the Loudness Wars.

soundproof:

How true. Some like to talk over music, and some like to listen to music -- you can often tell which is which by how their music systems are tuned.

Absolutely! I know two people who own Bose Lifestyle systems, and I can be pretty sure neither of them have ever really sat down and listened to music on their systems - they'll always be playing in the background. The midrange is where the real musical magic happens (although it has to be supported with good top end and bass of course!).

soundproof:

You can probably make pasta sauce using only Heinz ketchup and no vegetables -- maybe sprinkle some salt and ground pepper on for effect, when you serve. But it's not really pasta sauce, is it?

Then there are pasta sauces that have been made over several days, according to very specific family recipes.

A lot of the music released on CDs today goes the Heinz ketchup route, and that's the point of the Loudness Wars.

I'm hungry.

This loudness/compression crap on CDs is annoying and IMHO ruining the music... even as background music, it is especially bothersome with the BS5 since the mix of old and new CDs leads to need to constantly adjusting the volume.  I've also learned the hard way that "remastered" is not always better.  I've lost CDs over the years and often the "new and improved" remastered version is a dissapointment.  I guess I'm off to the resale stores for my CD replacements now...

To diverge a bit... has anybody compared Zappa's Hot Rats LP with the CD remaster.  They sound totally different (the CD seems to move the previously "backing horns" to the front and moves the guitar/bass to the back).  Did Frank's hearing change?  Is the remastered CD his original vision (which was messed up by the record company on the LP as too jazzy - don't know how much artistic control FZ had at the time)?  Is he making a joke?  Did he just decide to do something different because he could?  I guess we'll never know...

Stan

I don't know much about the recording process, but it would be intresting if someone could explain:

- What is the point of raising the volume in the first place? Is it that for a given volume on a system the sound will appear to be better if it is louder, or are there other benefits?

- Where in the process is the loudness / compression introduced? Are the dynamics lost already in the recording process, in mixing or in the final transfer/CD mix? Is the "source" kept in a high quality format anywhere so that in the future new "remastered" CD's with better dynamics can be released (opposite from now), or are recordings from the present time forever doomed to be of lesser quality/dynamics?

In the future I hope someone will utilize digital media to actually go one step beyond CD's and improve quality. With modern broadband connections and cheap storage it should be possible to use a lossless format with better specification than CD's. When you buy a song it could be downloaded in multiple formats, one high-quality, full dynamics version for hifi stereos, and one "compressed" version for iPods, cars etc. where it actually makes sense. It should all happen automatically, behind the scenes!

Mattias

Ennet:

I don't know much about the recording process, but it would be intresting if someone could explain:

- What is the point of raising the volume in the first place? Is it that for a given volume on a system the sound will appear to be better if it is louder, or are there other benefits?

Not quite sure to be honest - there aren't really any from a listener's point of view. A lot of artists are fooled into thinking there could be financial benefits because their recordings 'stand out'. The record labels seem blinded by the same misconception too...

The artist/businessmen behind the music gets played the first 20 seconds of two or three mixes, one louder (which engineers hate having to do) and one quieter (which is what most professional engineers ACTUALLY want) and maybe a few different levels between. The first 20 seconds of a 'crushed' loud recording usually sound better on a pair of mediocre, poorly set-up hifi/monitoring system in an acoustically poor room, but it's very disappointing to sit down and LISTEN to at length on a decent system which could otherwise make the music sound ace.

Try comparing two of your favourite recordings, but turn one of them up a couple of notches on the BeoSound - you'll find the louder one naturally sounds better, even if it didn't before. However, as said above, what sounds louder/better in the short-run can often sound worse in the long run, especially when you squash the dynamics out of the music in the process of making it louder...

Listeners will just end up turning the volume knob down if they find it too loud anyway, so what's the point in making records so loud?

Ennet:

- Where in the process is the loudness / compression introduced? Are the dynamics lost already in the recording process, in mixing or in the final transfer/CD mix? Is the "source" kept in a high quality format anywhere so that in the future new "remastered" CD's with better dynamics can be released (opposite from now), or are recordings from the present time forever doomed to be of lesser quality/dynamics?

It seems to vary. Take for example the remastered versions of Fleetwood Mac's Rumours; the original master (which is or was available on CD) sounds fantastic. Very dynamic, all the instruments/guitar strums are still there as they should be, jumping out of the speakers at you, and the drums still sound fantastic/dynamic/punchy. Compare this to the latest 'remastered' version and you'll find a lot of the 'realness' of the original recording is gone.

In this example, the squashing of dynamics has happened at a mastering stage (which is where it normally happens, after the recording & mixing process). Making something sound 'loud' in the recording studio is normally very difficult, as a recording studio engineer will know how to make equipment work musically, and do what the musicians kinda wanted, but won't necessarily know how to make a waveform take up as much volume/loudness as possible without sounding crackley/distorted/compressed (which is what a mastering engineer does, along with making the whole album sound 'continuous' and complete).

A different example could be say, the Red Hot Chilli Peppers. Their music is some of the worst recorded music I've ever listened to - talk about compressed and clipped! This is quite obviously a recording which has just been recorded loud and noisy from the outset - and unfortunately seems quite unlistenable at any decent length of time.

I can listen to good dynamic music for hours on end every day when listening on good speakers. Listen to squished, compressed, 'loudness-wars-victim' music at length and you'll find your ears getting tired quite quickly. You'll end up sitting in a quiet room to get away from the noise!

Sadly, most people don't seem to care about the loudness wars as 80% of the population listens to music on the speakers in their laptops/computers and the earbuds connected to their iPhones. Because these devices often have volume limits as a result of EU legislations, the louder the recording a better - as it helps to cut across the background noise. If the EU removed this restrictions, and instead introduced more legislation to do with the education of the effects of hearing damage, then none of these problems would exist (in my opinion of course)!

Ennet:

In the future I hope someone will utilize digital media to actually go one step beyond CD's and improve quality. With modern broadband connections and cheap storage it should be possible to use a lossless format with better specification than CD's. When you buy a song it could be downloaded in multiple formats, one high-quality, full dynamics version for hifi stereos, and one "compressed" version for iPods, cars etc. where it actually makes sense. It should all happen automatically, behind the scenes!

Mattias

Absolutely agreed!

MP3, AAC, WMA and other compressed PCM formats/variants for iPods/iPhones - i can't hear the difference between 192k MP3 and the original audio on my iPhone to be honest!

SACD/Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) for listening at home. PWM is a much smarter way of doing things than the conventional way of recording/storing/reproducing digital audio - it almost always seems to sound less angular and edgy! Unfortunately, PWM recording takes up a lot more processing power than the conventional digital format and would make a lot of modern recording techniques impossible to do!

Incidentally, PWM is actually how B&O's ICEPower amps work. Very clever technology!

Hope I haven't confused people.

Reading back through this post, I probably have. Oh well...

Alex:

It seems to vary. Take for example the remastered versions of Fleetwood Mac's Rumours; the original master (which is or was available on CD) sounds fantastic. Very dynamic, all the instruments/guitar strums are still there as they should be, jumping out of the speakers at you, and the drums still sound fantastic/dynamic/punchy. Compare this to the latest 'remastered' version and you'll find a lot of the 'realness' of the original recording is gone.

What a coincidence, just this morning I dug that up on Spotify - haven't heard the album in 20 years or so - and was badly disappointed. None of the lovely sound of my memories left. Dreams was just about the only track that I bothered listening through, just because it's such a beatiful tune. "Destroyed" would be the word I'd use...

There was this brilliant TV series (can't remember the original English title) that in each episode dissected a classic album track by track, telling how it was made, and even let the recording engineers pick up single instrument tracks from the master tapes and tell what had been going on behind them. Rumours was featured in it as well. It really made me appreciate the hard work that was done in the old days.

tournedos:

Alex:

It seems to vary. Take for example the remastered versions of Fleetwood Mac's Rumours; the original master (which is or was available on CD) sounds fantastic. Very dynamic, all the instruments/guitar strums are still there as they should be, jumping out of the speakers at you, and the drums still sound fantastic/dynamic/punchy. Compare this to the latest 'remastered' version and you'll find a lot of the 'realness' of the original recording is gone.

What a coincidence, just this morning I dug that up on Spotify - haven't heard the album in 20 years or so - and was badly disappointed. None of the lovely sound of my memories left. Dreams was just about the only track that I bothered listening through, just because it's such a beatiful tune. "Destroyed" would be the word I'd use...

There was this brilliant TV series (can't remember the original English title) that in each episode dissected a classic album track by track, telling how it was made, and even let the recording engineers pick up single instrument tracks from the master tapes and tell what had been going on behind them. Rumours was featured in it as well. It really made me appreciate the hard work that was done in the old days.

It's called "Classic Albums"!

My favourite was either "Graceland" or the  "Songs in the Key of LIfe" episode.

Alex:

Listeners will just end up turning the volume knob down if they find it too loud anyway, so what's the point in making records so loud?

Because of radio. Heavy compression -> your song sounds louder than the other songs played. That's how it started.

Also, when (mainly commercial) radio stations began to compress their output heavily by the use of limiters, many record labels thought it was better to do deliver an already multi-band compressed track to avoid the track being mangled by the radio station's limiter.

The (heavy) compression/limiting used to be applied in the final mastering process but nowadays when much popular music is produced and mixed in-the-box, the multiband compressor seems to have become an integral part of the recording process - in other words: the compression is nowadays often applied already in the recording and mixdown processes, making it impossible to get a great (=more dynamic) remaster in the future :-(

Puncher:

tournedos:

Alex:

It seems to vary. Take for example the remastered versions of Fleetwood Mac's Rumours; the original master (which is or was available on CD) sounds fantastic. Very dynamic, all the instruments/guitar strums are still there as they should be, jumping out of the speakers at you, and the drums still sound fantastic/dynamic/punchy. Compare this to the latest 'remastered' version and you'll find a lot of the 'realness' of the original recording is gone.

What a coincidence, just this morning I dug that up on Spotify - haven't heard the album in 20 years or so - and was badly disappointed. None of the lovely sound of my memories left. Dreams was just about the only track that I bothered listening through, just because it's such a beatiful tune. "Destroyed" would be the word I'd use...

There was this brilliant TV series (can't remember the original English title) that in each episode dissected a classic album track by track, telling how it was made, and even let the recording engineers pick up single instrument tracks from the master tapes and tell what had been going on behind them. Rumours was featured in it as well. It really made me appreciate the hard work that was done in the old days.

 

It's called "Classic Albums"!

My favourite was either "Graceland" or the  "Songs in the Key of LIfe" episode.

Wow! - I've just read my own link and found out that there is a "Rush" episode too! "Moving Pictures" is my favourite Rush album

DVD is out next month

It's been a multi-tiered mess.

First, the radio stations began compressing all their content, pushing it up in volume, in order to "out-shout" other radio stations they were competing against (and of course they left an extra 3dB ceiling for the ads.)

Then the radio stations discovered that they couldn't play music which wasn't pushed, as well. Because this music would suddenly seem as if a hole in the wall of sound they created.

This probem is exacerbated by the fact that a lot of people use radio to provide a background drone (at work, leisure, etc.) Radio managers noticed that stations with dynamic content wouldn't be selected for this kind of use, because the suddenly "silent" music would make them swith to another station.

So radio stations began fiddling with the music, reducing the dynamics, to provide a WALL OF SOUND!!!

And then record producers and bands decided to do the fiddling instead of letting the radio stations do it. We're now at the ludicrous situation where a lot of people have excellent sound systems, capable of reproducing very large dynamic ranges, right in their homes - and this equipment is being used to play back music with 4-5 dB dynamic range!

If you've seen the "Sound leveling" function in iTunes, you will have seen the offshoot of this development: people are so used to all their music droning away at the same loud level, that they want their home playback to do the same. This function adjusts all the music on your harddisk to one volume level ... (sigh).
Never use it, please. There's even software around that is supposed to "improve" upon the built-in volume leveling feature in iTunes.

This animation shows you what's happened - and this is actually a fairly mild example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cd_loudness_trend-something.gif

If you're serious about your music listening, you need to be aware of this. I had the same reaction to the "Rumours" release as Alex had, but I've come to be skeptical of all "remasters" and have found that it is useful to check reviews on the net before making a purchase. Now that people have become aware of the Loudness Wars, what's been done to the music is often evaluated.

If you want to check your music, Tischmeyer Technology has given us the tools we need. They've taken a definite stance in the Loudness Wars:

http://www.dynamicrangemetering.com/

You can download their Dynamic Range Meter, which will give you an idea as to what kind of music you are listening to. Does it have 4-5dB dynamic range, or 30+dB dynamic range?

thank you for the link

Alex:

SACD/Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) for listening at home. PWM is a much smarter way of doing things than the conventional way of recording/storing/reproducing digital audio - it almost always seems to sound less angular and edgy! Unfortunately, PWM recording takes up a lot more processing power than the conventional digital format and would make a lot of modern recording techniques impossible to do!

Incidentally, PWM is actually how B&O's ICEPower amps work. Very clever technology!

 

Hope I haven't confused people.

Reading back through this post, I probably have. Oh well...

DSD audio used on SACD's and PWM based (Class D) amplification actually create as many, if not more, problems as they solve. For equivalent word size and sample rate they is little, if any, discernable difference in quality between DSD and conventional PCM (CD technology). The overwhelming advantage of a Class D (or derivative) amplifier is cost, size and efficiency, which leads to very high power densities being possible.

ICEPower obviously solves the associated technical issues very well - is it better than an equivalently rated linear amp designed to meet the same performance specifications - who knows as there isn't such an amp available for direct comparison ........... what we can say with a high degree of certainty however is that the ICEPower version is a lot lighter, lower manufactured cost, much more efficient and much much smaller. The Lab5 would be impossible to build with equal performing linear amplification.