Metropoulos Forum

Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ


no wonder noone is buying CD's anymore. They all sound terrible!

I couldn't agree more. You look at modern mixes and they are complete square waves. No dynamics what so ever. My ears are fatigued by the first chorus.

Some are so bad that you can even hear digital clipping distortion. New Metallica anyone?

VG

absolutely true.

i'm old school analog, mostly good to near mint vinyl in my collection for critical listening though some cds sound pretty good (some really good).

to best evaluate marshall tones from the 60s-70s,then its vinyl all the way imo and usually the earliest pressings are best with some exceptions.

Amen.


Just google 'Metallica' and 'Loudness War' and you'll find a cornucopia of news articles about how bad the album sounds.

BTW, the Guitar Hero edition is mixed much better.

It's so good not to be alone...

From "Shout At The Devil" to "Kind of Blue", it's hard to find a record that can't out do a CD. (Except for one of my Racer X albums; but, I'm pretty sure that was a digital master... ...and that master sounds like UTTER GARBAGE.) Love 'em or hate 'em, Mick Mars' amps on SATD... ...you just know they're kick ass loud in the studio, yet, you can hear everything clearly...

SIDE NOTE: Sadly, I understand Mick used all amp plugins on their latest... WTF!

The loudness war isn't caused by the fact that it's digital though. It's caused by Record companies who want their clients to be really loud and noticeable on the radio and by bad mixing and mastering engineers.
Vinyl has great clarity and dynamics because its very difficult to master for vinyl. The cutting wheel is very sensitive so you have to be careful of how its mastered (ie no ridiculous brick wall limiters). Thus vinyl ended up having that great clarity that we can all still enjoy.
When digital came along mastering engineers did the same thing they were always doing but slowly the realisation came that it can now be made WAY louder. Record companies want their clients music to stand out when played (be it on radio, internet tv etc) so they wanted the music turned up as loud as possible.
I used to solely blame mastering engeineers for this: then I heard several examples of work off the same engineers and turns out they can make brilliant masters as well. So it's really all about who is paying for it and that they are the ones who determine how a master turns out.
Top quality digital today actually allows for much greater dynamics than analog did. Look at the film industry: great dynamics! and it's all done digitally. Hopefully a return to musical dynamics will happen soon. In the mean time I guess we have to listen to our vinyls, carefully pick our cds, and if necessary turn the volume really low.

Rob

i didnt mean to suggest digital was to blame for poor sound,i have some jazz stuff that sounds incredible,very dynamic on cd.

it is a fact a lot of cd remasters from the 60s-70s arent as good as the vinyl for a variety of reasons (which RAM explained).

also keep in mind that original source tapes are often degraded after many years in storage,sometimes they are very good though.

there is also a BIG difference between different stampings of albums thru the years and usually the earliest pressing is best but sometimes later pressings are very good too.

Is it possible that with the transition to satellite radio, hi-def radio, etc. that the industry need for extreme compression/limiting to maximize volume will become unnecessary? After all, as posted earlier, I thought the volume war started with record companies trying to get their records to compete better in a crowded RF spectrum.

tonepilgrim wrote:Is it possible that with the transition to satellite radio, hi-def radio, etc. that the industry need for extreme compression/limiting to maximize volume will become unnecessary? After all, as posted earlier, I thought the volume war started with record companies trying to get their records to compete better in a crowded RF spectrum.

...sadly, I don't think that will change the mentality. The goal is just to be the loudest. Maximum impact... being loud, now, is to simply attract as much attention as possible. The industry knows most of the drivel they produce nowadays is used as background music for people doing other things, whether it's exercising,drinking to excess, sex, playing checkers or whatever. The number of people who actual sit and listen to the music for the sake of listening to music won't support their huge corporate budget (bonus pay allocations based on sales figures). Did you ever notice how the music is BLARING at Best Buy?? One of the many reason I don't go there to buy music anymore. So, at least, for so called popular (high profile, highly hyped and promoted) music, it's the unavoidable train wreck, the crazy determined to crash.

I agree this is less the case with music out of the mainstream; because, the reason for recording it is not max profit taking.

I also agree a digital recording is not inherently horrible sounding; however, the Loudness Wars (to the degree that we know them now) were made possible because of the ability to abuse the technology. FM radio was guilty of compressing and boosting; but, we weren't buying FM radio. We were listening to FM radio and then buying the records. It's one thing to listen to a crappy recording. It's a whole other thing to pay upwards of $15 to own a crappy recording.

Linear PCM by it's very nature uses a sampling frequency; which, means you are only hearing parts of the original analog wave form. (...upon playback the holes in the original data are guesstimated by an algorithm / the result is different every time...) 16bit/44.1kHz was marketed as perfect sound forever. Until, they figured out 16bit/48kHz was more perfect. Then 24/96 (DVD) then 24/192... then, how 'bout scrap all that for 2 million something (SACD/DSD). This is all an effort to make digital sound more like analog!! I suppose none of that matters because so many are enamored with .mp3's.

Something is very wrong with this picture... IMHO.

i didnt mean to suggest digital was to blame for poor sound

Sorry I didn't mean to imply that you were suggesting this. It's more to do with the abuse of the technology that leads to the horrible sound. Like (as an extreme example) dynamite was created to help miners, people then abused the invention so that they could kill each other. In terms of music: great technology was made to make music so much easier to record and make it sound as good as possible. But some have chosen to completely abuse this.

Maximum impact... being loud, now, is to simply attract as much attention as possible

Yep. This is it basically. A sort of 'superliminal' messaging, so that their song gets stuck in your head and you then go buy the cd like a good little robot. Mp3 are great or when you're walking around and the traffic, or other outside noise, is already interfering with the sound. You can barely notice the drop in audio quality. But once you listen to them on a decent HI-FI they really don't compare to a cd.

Digital audio has a much better sinal to noise ratio than analog. The stupid thing is that the more you turn the sound up in the studio the worse this ratio gets until you start actually adding digital noise into the sound! We can only hope that with the decline of the record companies: that independant music keeps the dynamics.

there is also a BIG difference between different stampings of albums thru the years and usually the earliest pressing is best but sometimes later pressings are very good too.

As you said this is down to degradation of the original. The funny thing is that new pressings often have to be remastered as they don't have the old master. The remaster is then done on completely different equipment so it'll never be exactly the same.

Linear PCM by it's very nature uses a sampling frequency; which, means you are only hearing parts of the original analog wave form.

44.1/ 16 bit: means 44100 samples taken every second with 16 1s and 0s describing this sample. You aren't missing much. Reproduction of the digital audio is down to the digital clock in the converter. And just like a bad amp will make the audio going in sound bad regardles of it's quality: if the clock and converter are bad so will the audio be. From tests I've done it can be really difficult to notice any difference in sampling rates, unless you go up to maybe 192kHz. The main thing is to have high bit depths. Don't think of digital audio in terms of a waveform: it's not a waveform, its just 1s and 0s.

Anyway, all we can really do is keep the dynamics in our own music and encourage others to do so too. We'll have to wait and just hope for a major shift in this area. Lets hope it comes sooner rather than later.

Rob

RAM wrote:From tests I've done it can be really difficult to notice any difference in sampling rates, unless you go up to maybe 192kHz. The main thing is
to have high bit depths. Don't think of digital audio in terms of a waveform: it's not a waveform, its just 1s and 0s.

I don't understand your comment about not thinking of DA as a waveform? In order for our ears to hear/perceive the music, it must come to our ears as an analog wave. The 1's and 0's were derived from and have to be converted back to an analog wave for it to be understood as music. The point of digital audio is to pack the analog information in a smaller package that is resistant to physical wear; but, the goal was always to reproduce as much of the original waveform as possible. The extent to which is limited to the current sampling technology. The higher the sampling, I agree, the more difficult it becomes to tell the difference... as it should because it comes closer to tracing the original analog wave as opposed to sampling it. Maybe I missed your point.

It reminds me of the arguement that there is no need to have a guitar amp produce frequencies below that of the low E string. Yet, there are non-prominent LF resonances coming from the guitar that an amp can produce if designed to do so and that all contributes to what we call "the sound". It will forever be an arguement between those that can hear the "holes" in the sampled wave form and those who say they don't miss it, between those that must have their tube amps in the studio and those who can live with tracking all their guitars with a modeler.

I guess my problem with that is marketing and deceptive advertising. It's not that digital sound or amp modelers actually sound better than analog sound and tube amps. They are completely different beasts. They are products a company wants to sell. That's not bad; but, when these products are advertised as "better" I find myself asking, "Why?" and aren't they comparing apples to oranges. One JTM45 can be better built than another JTM45; but, a JTM45 simulation can only be better than another JTM45 simulation. It can never be an actual JTM45 all tube, hand-wired amp, unless we warp into another dimension or something.

lcampz wrote:I don't understand your comment about not thinking of DA as a waveform?

Hmm, I guess my point is that its only digital when its on the computer(or other binary interface). When we hear it: it's analog(as you said). So it's actually the digital to analog converter that governs the transition between the two stages. This DA has to be good in order to reproduce even our sampled audio to the highest quality.

Trust me, with modern (good) digital technology, audio can be sampled and reproduced incredibly accurately. Analog equipment adds certain artefacts to the sound that digital does not. Luckily for us these artefacts often add a great warmth to the sound that we just can't do with our 'too accurate' digital gear. Like how valves distort and change our audio. Modern solid state amplifiers can amplify sound more accurately than valves. But valves sound alot better(in a certain context) than solid state amplifiers.

The main thing benefit about high sample rates is actually that the low pass filter can be much better than with lower sampling rates. Essentially the main benefit is that aliasing is much less likely to occur, so no digital artefacts will be added to the sound. Digital is all about recording to the most accurate degree that we can. Analog gear is now primarily used to add all of those artefacts that we love, and to effect the sound in ways that just can't be done as well in digital.

In analog, ie tape, the DC voltage readings of the audio are written as a DC wave onto the tape. The accuracy with which this wave is written depends on the equipment just like digital so you are never getting an exact copy of the wave (in digital or analog). As you said they are two completely different beasts. Use them as you will.

As you said we must all form our own opinions and not be driven simply by marketing chants and slogans. Like anything else we ever intend spending our hard earned money on, we must do research and follow our own opinions. In terms of the original topic this means we must form our own opinions on mastering and loudness. I'm sure some songs probably sound better for having been insanely compressed and limited (statistically there has to be at least one). Like in our preferences for tube amps: we must always go with what is actually best for the music, whatever it may be.

Rob

RAM wrote:no digital artefacts will be added to the sound

That leaves out jitter, which is a common component (to a lesser or greater degree) in digital recordings, the recording process and/or the playback process. Jitter can actually alter frequencies. That most certainly I would think is an undesirable artifact; so much so that it has spawned it's own market of audiophile and professional upgrade outboard "jitter reducing" DAC's, word clocks, etc.

RAM wrote:When we hear it: it's analog(as you said). So it's actually the digital to analog converter that governs the transition between the two stages. This DA has to be good in order to reproduce even our sampled audio to the highest quality.

I agree; but, how did the music become digital. It had to go through an A/D to become binary... so the binary could then go through a D/A to become analog again. To store music digitally it has to go through this intermediary process. This process is still "destructive" (in terms of losing some of the original source), albeit a lot less noticeable with higher bit rates/sampling frequencies. I agree we all have preferences; but, digital conversion isn't a preference thing... that's just what happens during encoding/decoding.

Think of it this way: an old picture of a beautiful woman covered in dust. The picture is the analog wave, the original representation of the sound - the dust are the "artifacts". If you blow off all the dust, the picture is still there in all of it's beauty and in all of it's entirety. On the other hand take that same picture and put a number of pin holes in it. Even with no dust on it, it will never be the same as it was when it had no holes. You can hold it at a distance and not notice; but, up close most will know something is not quite right. In a way, it's smoke and mirrors - try to get you to hear (and/or see) what you're not really hearing (and/or) seeing. Everyone thought DVD was great... ...until BluRay came along. But until it did, the industry had to keep hyping DVD, which I concede was better than VHS. But... ...was VHS better than BETA... nope, that was a corporate format war.

Digital experts know but rarely admit that you can't get something from nothing. You can convert an .mp3 file into a .wav file but you can't add anymore original analog (sound) information to the .wav file than you had to begin with in the .mp3 file. The "filling out" process (the algorithm) is still guesstimation even if it's highly advanced guesstimation. The very process of going from digital to analog throws out information that it thinks (based on the inventors of the technology) the average listener won't miss. Clearly many do miss what they are not hearing.

The difference with a tube guitar amp is that it is part of the instrument. It's not an audiophile device designed to represent the input as purely as possible. To that end I do not prefer tube amplification for listening to recorded music; because, of the THD you mentioned.

DSD and high bit rate/high sampling frequency PCM do sound quite good; but, perhaps the all defining question is, "What have we really gained?" At last check, analog masters and high bit rate recordings all seem to wind up on Red Book CD's!
Maybe this is a pointless (yet interesting conversation) because most people don't care. They leave the quality recordings to be bought by "audiophiles" and "vinylphiles". I guess that' me.

great discussion

jcs wrote:great discussion

Thanks. I think its great for us all to have a healthy discussion. There alot of people who would only broach such a subject with arguments instead of discussing it properly.

lcampz wrote:That leaves out jitter,

You're right. I failed to mention jitter. That annoying bug caused by digital clock inconsistencies. No matter how much I might like any technological idea, if it isn't implemented right there will be problems. Subsequent developments in technolgy have enabled us to reduce jitter and it takes engineers a long time to properly design and implement the technology. Clocking systems are getting better, but as I said before, do your research and get the best that is possible(and affordable).

On a side note, its kind of funny that most outboard jitter devices are only really a bandaid for the real problems which are in the converters themselves. Such bandaids can often mildly cure problems caused by bad converters though.

lcampz wrote:On the other hand take that same picture and put a number of pin holes in it.

However these holes are the frequencies which we can't actually here (though I do recall hearing tests done wherein audio was recorded digitally then played to participant. I believe they tried to ensure the audio contained frequencies beyind our hearing spectrum. The participants then had to rate this audio against audio the same auio that did not contain the extraneous frequenices. Apparently the audio with more frequncies one. I guess it'd a little obvious that the frequencies we can't hear have to have some sort of effect on us).

Anyway getting back to: we (supposedly/theoretically) ccan't hear these holes. 20kHz: a sound wave that moves back and forth 20000 times a second. Digital converters (sampling at 44.1kHz) can capture frequencies that move back and forth 44100 times a second. The holes you speak of is the audio that moves even faster than this, thus frequencies higher than 44.1kHz. Which may have a slight effect on us or may do nothing to us at all. Of course the digital converters use their low pass converters to cut frequencies above 20kHz anyway, so they don't end up in the audio.

However analog might be capable of capturing these high frequencies, and thus they (possibly) effect us in some way. But most microphones can't capture such frequencies, and it's certainly beyond the range of speakers to move that fast and reproduce these frequencies. So those frequencies don't really end up in the analog signal either.

lcampz wrote:Everyone thought DVD was great... ...until BluRay came along. But until it did, the industry had to keep hyping DVD, which I concede was better than VHS. But... ...was VHS better than BETA... nope, that was a corporate format war.

Again it's all about poorly implemented technolgy. A mathematician comes up with undeniable mathematical proof that something incredible can be done. A hundred years later a physicist or engineer sees it and decides to implement it. Only they don't do it right. But it get's progressively better as they realise how to properly do it.

lcampz wrote:The very process of going from digital to analog throws out information that it thinks (based on the inventors of the technology) the average listener won't miss. Clearly many do miss what they are not hearing.

I think you're really referring to the conversion of .wavs to .mp3s. Don't get me started on this! As I said before mp3s are okay on the bus or when out on the street: but I otherwise detest their creation. As you said, the designers essentially thought: "oh most people can't possibly hear above 16kHz now, so we'll cut all of that. And those pesky masked frequencies, we'll cut them too. Whats that? It sounds rubbish? Who cares! just put it on the internet!"

I'm all for going high quality digital. And like you, I hate the current regression in the market.

lcampz wrote:"What have we really gained?" At last check, analog masters and high bit rate recordings all seem to wind up on Red Book CD's!
Maybe this is a pointless (yet interesting conversation) because most people don't care. They leave the quality recordings to be bought by "audiophiles" and "vinylphiles". I guess that' me.

I guess that's me too. Like how you said DVDs replced VHS,we have to keep going for the higher quality. Given the speed of modern broadband: there is nothing today preventing us from downloading albums as high quality digital instead of those loathsome mp3s. The real problem is we have no say in it. So the highest quality we generally have access to are cds. (except for the rare occasion that a band releases high quality digital for us quality mongers).

Rob