Half the information on CDs is analogue


I would like to argue that one of the reasons that some transports sound significantly better than others is because much of the information on a given CD is actually analogue (analog) information.
An excellent transport does not just read digital information: 1s and 0s (offs and ons); it must be sensitive enough to pick up the other information that has been stored as a physical property of the CD medium. This 'physical' information, like the tiny bumps in the groove of a vinyl record, is analogue information.

Before I say more I'd like to hear what others think.
exlibris
Sean,

What do you think monitoring setups in most studios and recording schools are like? If you think that $3,000-$5,000 nearfield monitors and a pair of expensive mains is akin to bose speakers, then you've obviously never heard a serious studio playback system. A student listening in a highly acoustically treated, specially designed room on dynaudio nearfields and ATC mains has an idea of what good sound is like.

It really gets me angry when over and over again I see a lack of respect on this and other audiophile forums for people in the recording industry. There is a negative (in my opinion) trend towards over compression and SOME poor recording practices, but the problem isn't all the engineers. You would also be SHOCKED to hear how different most recordings sound like before mastering. If anybody is interested I can post a clip of a project I just finished before mastering, and afterward. There's probably a 10-15db difference in percieved loudness, and the difference in dynamic range is huge.

The problem is NOT the engineers (or even the mastering engineers), it's the labels and people's expectations. When someone puts a CD in their car and it's 15db softer than the rest of their CD's, their instant reaction is that it is an inferior product, and that the sound quality is lower than their other CD's. In a short AB test, people almost always prefer the louder, brighter recording.

Another reason for over-compression and a lack of dynamic range is that most people don't just sit and listen to music anymore. They listen in the car, on headphones while commuting, jogging, etc, or in the background. A recording with little dynamic range is ideal for these purposes. I can't listen to classical music in the car because it's either too soft to hear, or it's blowing my ears out. Same goes for listening on the subway or while jogging. Music with too much dynamic range is tougher to listen to in a noisy environment or in the background. Most modern music isn't very dynamic anyway. Trust me, it's not like there's much in the way of dynamic swings in modern pop or rock before it hits mastering.

The problem is also that engineering is an INCREDIBLY competitive field. Most attempting to enter the field today won't be anything more than assistants, interns, or runners for the rest of the decade and beyond. There aren't many jobs for engineers out there, and getting the few that do exist involves mainly luck, but also feeding into exactly the expectations that are there for you. It's probably not too surprising that the goal is almost always "sound like band x", or "just like the break in song y", not "give us the best sound".

So don't be so quick to blame the state of modern recording on some incompetency on the part of engineers. We know what good sound is, even if most of the guys don't have nice playback rigs at home (do you like to bring your work home with you?). Engineers also know about the current state of the recording industry. Engineers are always complaining about over compression and the lack of musicality in modern recordings. Most of the problem is in mastering, and out of the recording/mix engineer's hands, and even then the problem is with the labels and expectations of the public and the guys writing the checks. I have a degree and years of experience in my field. If you think that you can do my job better, please come out to the studio and have a crack at it. You're welcome to try anytime.
Very good post Axelfonze. None of these things surprise me - but it's nice to see them so well stated.

Regards,
Axelfonze,

I agree with you that it is the market (cars, iPod's in the gym etc.) that drives the industry to "hot" sounding CD's and nothing to do with the technology or the mastering engineer's abilities. Fortunately movie soundtracks have not headed so relentlessly towards "loudness wars" and many soundtracks for movies sound very good.

Perhaps the only solution for audiophiles to hit back is to complain to the labels, artists and producers...in the end it spells opportunity for a new Telarc, Chesky or a new Sheffield labs etc. to be born out of the "boring monotony of the loudness wars".....may be a new "Axelfonze" label where pop music still has dynamic range? .....much like Starbucks simply offered good coffee at a time where it was becoming almost impossible to find good coffee in much of North America...the rest is history.
Axelfonze: I have been in studios and could sit here and pick apart your response, highlighting tons of flaws that take place in most every session, but that would only create further tension and debate. As a general rule though, i do agree with a lot of what you have said.

With that in mind, it is up to those that are "industry professionals" that still have some form of integrity to do their job as best possible and speak up about the matter. To me, this would mean taking the time to educate the performers, making them aware of the different methods used to make good and / or bad sounding recordings. I can guarantee that most every performer would rather have their records sound as good as possible, even it meant sacrificing some volume. If such weren't the case, we wouldn't have folks like Bob Dylan, Neil Young, etc... making the comments that they are. If we can get the performers educated and involved, it will be hard for the "industry professionals" responsible for this mess to ignore pressure from both sides i.e. the bands and the consumers.

Those in marketing are the idiots responsible for the "volume wars" that the aforementioned article talks about. Getting through to them will be difficult, but we really do need to take steps to see what we can do. While i have a million projects going as it is, i'm going to see what we can do about this. Obviously, this will take a LOT of help from others, both end users and those within the industry. When i get some time and start to make some progress organizing some type of "protest", i'll surely post something here and at AA.

Obviously, this type of protest will meet with some within the recording industry, but my guess is, that most engineers want to be proud of their work and how their work sounds. As such, they might take offense to some of the comments made here and how they are perceived in the future, but the bottom line is that we both strive for the same thing. Good music that is well recorded and well preserved for a long time to come. Sean
>
If we can get the performers educated and involved, it will be hard for the "industry professionals" responsible for this mess to ignore pressure from both sides i.e. the bands and the consumers

There's no pressure from consumers.

Regards,