Yes, compression is necessary to 'contain' for lack of a better word the highs and lows within a listenable range. But that is compression that is used both out of necessity and, when done well, artistically.
I'm still not sure I'm buying into the volume or low power devices theories. As far as volume, as I mentioned, most players and streaming services are normalized. As is radio. So , 'loud enough' to be noticed/heard really isn't the point any more. It can't be. Every device and service has a volume 'knob'. As far as low power devices, every iPhone I've ever had will play ear buds and even typical headphones loud enough to damage your hearing. So, to me anyway, that does not serve as an adequate explanation as to why this problem _persists_. |
Carp, it was my primary component until just a couple of years ago when I got involved in hi-fi. It was the SA2500 which got great mid-fi reviews back in early 80's and contemporary reviews done decades later reviewed it well too. I used it almost continuously up until about 10 years ago when it went into my cabin in the country which means it sat unused (except on weekends) in temperatures that ranged anywhere from 98 to 20. And still worked well for a long time. Anyway........I digress.
buckhorn, I agree that conspiracy theories are off the mark here and I think Occam's Razor is an excellent principle with the exception of when it isn't.
And sometimes conspiracy theories exist because they are the most simple explanation, however wrong they might be.
|
There is a very fine line between use, abuse and recreation. |
I know I'm beating a dead horse. And I don't mean to be argumentative. And I very well may be misunderstanding something. I probably am.
But........as has been said before, and not just by me, most of what people hear through ear buds is normalized. As I have played with normalization in iTunes and in Amazon Music nothing gets turned up. Only down. In fact, in Amazon HD normalization has no effect on minimally compressed song. Only on compressed songs. Can't say about other platforms.
In other words, as far as I can tell, the volume of a DR uncompressed song is not increased to match the volume of a DR compressed songs. The volume of compressed songs is decreased. So if that normalization decreases the volume of overly compressed songs there is no real benefit even where there is background noise. The softer bits will be made softer by the normalization. To hear them the volume has to be turned up by the user.....just like with an uncompressed song.
It could be that I'm overestimating the use of normalization. Maybe the 13 year old ear bud listeners uniformly turn it off.
|
Well, I think it is pretty clear now that uberwaltz, pesky_wabbit and cleeds are part of the conspiracy. ;-)
|
@cleeds Please do not confuse me with facts.......;-)
But I am confused now. So help me out. Seriously, I'm trying to understand.
A piece of music gets DR compressed. That means the range of lowest to highest volume is narrowed. In general this leads to an overall increase in loudness.
This makes the quiet bits closer to the louder bits. This helps with low end devices and to overcome ambient noise.
But when played through most iPhones the volume is normalized which basically means the volume is decreased relative to non-compressed songs. So when it is normalized those quieter bits are made quieter.
That would seem to defeat to a large extent the desired effect of compression.
I understand that the compression makes the quiet bits louder _relative_ to the louder bits but if all of it is 'turned down' by normalization then the quieter bits are turned down too.
What have I got wrong here? |
Some say there has been no decent music since 1893.
|
Why do you say it is a requirement? Not disagreeing, I just don't understand why.
Most sources, including radio, normalize loudness to some extent. It is the default setting in iTunes/Apple Music. So it would be unusual for a song to stand out significantly because of over compression. Having said that, there is quite a bit of variation in loudness on Amazon Music (normal resolution, I do not have hi-res at this point so can't speak to that.) Maybe there is a normalization setting in Amazon Music but if so I have not seen it.
Also, it isn't like a well recorded nominally compressed song has to sound bad in the car or with ear buds if loudness is normalized.
Anyway, I still don't get it and to me it seems like one of the biggest issues in hi-fi sound quality.
My conspiracy theory is that its just what everyone does because everyone has always (since early 90s) done it.
Mark Knopfler doesn't do it.......well not as bad as most, some of his stuff is moderately compressed. But I suspect Mark Knopfler 1) Knows what he's doing and 2) Does whatever he wants.
|
I don't buy into conspiracy theories.
I also don't buy into digital vs analog debates. I hear good stuff in both formats.
What I do buy into is that most new music is horribly compressed. There is a fair amount of good data to support this. I probably have the least 'golden ears' of anyone on this web site but I can typically tell over DR compressed music immediately, at least on my system. And I hate it. It ruins the music for me in terms of hi-fi listening. In the car, no problem.
But here's the gist of why I'm responding: Many conspiracy theories are born when credible explanations are sparse. I don't believe record companies are trying to ruin any one's music. Those of us who are bothered by DR compression are a tiny percentage of people who pay for music.
So the question remains: Why does DR over compression persist? I know there are bands who meticulously produce their music but the final product is overcompressed. Why? Alabama Shakes and The Teskey Brothers stand out as bands who release well engineered stuff that is then over compressed. And it is not a CD vs vinyl issue. Both formats can be and frequently are over compressed. Vinyl seems less likely to be but is hardly immune. So the format is not the issue.
There are also bands out there releasing music that is not over compressed. So it can be done. Mark Knopfler comes to mind.
So to me the question is not one of conspiracy. But it is still a question of why? What drives it? |
Maybe that's it.
And I agree, at this point it just seems to be a fact of life.
At the risk of hijacking the thread it seems to me is that the next question is what can we do about it? I'm not talking about changing the industry, I'm talking about what we can do within our systems to make an overly compressed song sound better.
I personally don't think you can do much. You just can't work with data that isn't there. One Audiogon member, I don't recall who it was, suggested that if you knew what you were doing and how to tweak your system and room etc you could make overly compressed music sound great.
I don't mean any offense and I'm probably the least qualified here to say so but I wouldn't believe it until I heard it. I'm sure it can be made to sound better, but I'm skeptical about a recording with a DR value of "4" (acceptable being 10 or more) ever sounding good.
I did experiment with couple of Neko Case albums with average DR values of around "7" using the EQ in iTunes. You could mess with the curves and definitely improve things. That has always made me wonder about a component equalizer and if that would be effective. It also made me wonder if anyone makes a component EQ with presets that can be changed via remote.
With Sonos you have a very simple EQ and loudness setting. I have not played with that.
|
The problem is that compression doesn't actually make it sound as good as possible on typical devices and normalization often renders even that 'effect' pointless.
So that might be the reason why it is done but it still isn't a very good reason.
Of course many accepted standards don't make sense.
|
I still don’t have an adequate conspiracy theory that works any better than your explanation or anyone else’s so I’m not ready to go down that path either.
I still think that for a number of years it was just the thing to do for reasons you mention and other reasons that were more valid 10-20 years ago and now it is just the de facto procedure. I suspect there is a fear among pop and high volume producers that if their song with minimal compression is played next to most any other songs in a system that is not normalized that their song will be thought to be the one with the problem and not the others and not be willing to risk it.
I also wonder what "normalized" means these days when the norm is loud and compressed.
Likewise, I suspect that the reason the problem is less common on vinyl is the reasonable assumption that people listening to vinyl are more discriminating. I just wish that attitude would carry over to CD (my preferred format). I think the reason it doesn’t carry over to CD is that currently CDs for new music are probably just an afterthought at most.
It seems like most of us audiophiles have 'push button' issues that set us off. It might be cables, it might be power supplies, it might be room treatment, it might be crystals and magnets. For me it is DR compression. ;-)
|
@cleeds I guess what you are describing is simply not what I experience when it comes to normalization.
With Amazon you can switch it on and off and it changes as you listen.
So if I'm listening to a compressed song and have normalization "off" and the volume set to where the quietest parts are just audible and then turn normalization 'on' then those barely audible quiet bits are no longer audible. In other words, normalization seems to have defeated the benefit of compression.
On the other hand, if playing a non-compressed song with the quiet parts just barely audible and I turn normalization off or on, almost nothing happens.
So from an experience standpoint I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean when you say normalization has no effect on compression. I understand it does not change the level of compression or the level of the quiet bits _relative_ to the loud bits. But it does decrease the loudness across the entire DR which lowers the volume of the quiet bits and the loud bits together in which case the quiet bits can become harder to hear.
@glupson, I'm guessing, but do not know with any certainty, that producers could selectively compress specific portions of the DR and not just across the whole range. I would assume this is how artful DR compression is used with classical pieces that have extremely wide DRs.
I would also think that the effect of DR for the listener would vary with various types of music, recordings and production technique. |
I still have Toshiba receiver I had in high school. And it doesn't even work. Its just too pretty to throw away. |
Agree about Fleming to a certain extent. But ’luck’ often happens to folks who know how to look for it a recognize it even if it wasn’t the exact ’luck’ they were looking for.
As far as over compressed audio, again, I agree, there is no conspiracy. But at the same time I think the reason it is used is not as necessary as those using it think it is.
Conspiracy or not I still think uberwaltz, Cleeds and dougy are covering something up. Just not sure what it is yet.
|
Well, I personally don’t think there is anything sinister about businesses wanting to maximize profits. I’m not saying that business doesn’t and cannot serve other purposes but money is usually the reason there is a business at all.
And I agree, money drives the nature of the commodity.
However, just because something has a certain feature does not mean that that feature is what makes that thing sell even when the business that makes that thing believes that the feature is what makes it sell. In other words, they might think DR compression sells but I’m not certain that is true. At least not in a linear fashion.
For example there is plenty of popular music coming out in which the DR (according to the database) averages around 5. To me, this is unlistenable on a hi-fi system and tolerable on ear buds or in the car. On the other hand a song with a DR of 9 can sound okay on a hi-fi system and just as good in the car or with ear buds. My point being I think the industry convinced itself that more compression = more money. I don’t think that is true.
|
@russashe, to respond to your comments I will address them individually.
"How
is an LP, recorded and mastered on a digital deck a different format
than a CD. The compression and other insults occur in the mix for the
master tape/file."
I did not make any claims as to how or why. I only cited what has been observed and documented. Again, I have a CD by the Tesky Brothers. I own it and it sounds compressed, and it is according to the DR database. I also own the vinyl LP. It does not sound compressed and in fact it sounds very well recorded. According to the DR database it is less compressed than the CD. I have seen many more examples of this.
One can only conclude that the compression does not take place until final mastering and in some, if not many, cases, the vinyl shows less compression.
"Also you mention Mark Knopfler but I seem to
remember early Dire Straits digital recordings that were pressed to
vinyl that were awful. Huge sound stage, remarkable dynamic range,
improbable separation, 20-20K response, all the good things that come
with great sound without great sound."
Well, first off I'm referring to Knopfler's solo work and not Dire Straits. And not all of his solo work is recorded with low levels of compression but a lot of it is and it sounds that way. Second, I don't remember Dire Straits albums sounding bad back in college and my roommate had a rather nice hi-fi system. But I can't make any claims about my perception of sound quality back then. Probably pretty poor.
"Compression of the type
employed in the ’noise wars’ is a function of digital mastering/editing.
In the analog domain compression, like everything else, is quite tricky
and has to employed with skill and discretion if you don’t want to get
laughed out of the studio."
Agreed. But I think it requires skill and discretion regardless of the format. It can and has been done effectively and artistically within the digital format. So it is not a unicorn....but it might be a platypus.
"Lastly, you said recently that there
is nothing wrong with businesses wanting to maximize profit. While this
is true as a standalone statement, when examined in light of what SOME
companies and individuals are willing to do to maximize profit it
becomes a little less innocuous. ’Wanting’ someone dead is a lot
different than murder."
I made no claims about what people might do in the name of profits. Anything can be made evil and nothing about the nature of business makes that more or less true than it is with anything else.
|
I usually only go half conspiritard. I have a theory that they want you to go full on. So I never do.
|
