Poor sound quality in lots of modern recordings.
Discussion
Loudness 'wars', dynamic compression and clipping of the source file.
I understand why it happens (well, apart from clipping from the mastering studio - no real excuse for that is there?) and what sounds 'good' using Bluetooth speakers might not sound so good when played back through a half-decent audio system but is there a solution for removing these nasties during playback? I.e post mastering?
Or is it more audio snake oil?
I understand why it happens (well, apart from clipping from the mastering studio - no real excuse for that is there?) and what sounds 'good' using Bluetooth speakers might not sound so good when played back through a half-decent audio system but is there a solution for removing these nasties during playback? I.e post mastering?
Or is it more audio snake oil?
Listen to it on Vinyl? Vinyl does seem mastered differently to CD/MP3 (well, of course it is, it has to be) with the result being that the vinyl often sounds better than the CD. Even with what I considered a good CD (Ben Howard 'Every Kingdom') the vinyl is clearer and cleaner. The Lonodon Grammar album and OK Computer sound about the same on both, the only album I have which actually sounds better on CD is 'Writing of Blues and Yellows' by Bille Marten.
It's clear that most modern music is mastered to sound optimal on portables and other devices with limited dynamic range.
I have a Logitech Squeezebox radio next to my bed, and wake up to music from my own library every morning, and the heavily compressed stuff sounds the clearest (in that you can hear 'everything') which is what I would expect.
Play those same songs on my HiFi and it's a different story.
When the radio is playing the really good quality stuff, you only hear the loud parts - hence more dynamic range = less information conveyed on a low quality device.
There are various apps available to view the dynamic range of your songs, there is a plugin available for Foobar2000 and a favourite of mine is the Orban Loudness Meter
Here's a pretty poor example as demonstrated by Orban (this is 'Lazy' from 'Re-Machined - A Tribute To Deep Purple s Machine Head')
The opening segment features a solo organ hence the lower volume, but as the song progresses, you can see it's compressed to the max.
Needless to say, this sounds pretty poor on my HiFi...
By way of contrast, the lower image is 'My Way' by Frank Sinatra. You can see the huge difference in dynamic range.
EDIT: By compressed I mean the dynamic range is compressed (limited) and not mp3 compression.
I have a Logitech Squeezebox radio next to my bed, and wake up to music from my own library every morning, and the heavily compressed stuff sounds the clearest (in that you can hear 'everything') which is what I would expect.
Play those same songs on my HiFi and it's a different story.
When the radio is playing the really good quality stuff, you only hear the loud parts - hence more dynamic range = less information conveyed on a low quality device.
There are various apps available to view the dynamic range of your songs, there is a plugin available for Foobar2000 and a favourite of mine is the Orban Loudness Meter
Here's a pretty poor example as demonstrated by Orban (this is 'Lazy' from 'Re-Machined - A Tribute To Deep Purple s Machine Head')
The opening segment features a solo organ hence the lower volume, but as the song progresses, you can see it's compressed to the max.
Needless to say, this sounds pretty poor on my HiFi...
By way of contrast, the lower image is 'My Way' by Frank Sinatra. You can see the huge difference in dynamic range.
EDIT: By compressed I mean the dynamic range is compressed (limited) and not mp3 compression.
Edited by TonyRPH on Wednesday 29th March 19:05
varsas said:
Listen to it on Vinyl? Vinyl does seem mastered differently to CD/MP3 (well, of course it is, it has to be) with the result being that the vinyl often sounds better than the CD. Even with what I considered a good CD (Ben Howard 'Every Kingdom') the vinyl is clearer and cleaner. The Lonodon Grammar album and OK Computer sound about the same on both, the only album I have which actually sounds better on CD is 'Writing of Blues and Yellows' by Bille Marten.
I've been fortunate enough to have heard vinyl played back on some really good systems (and an LP12....;)) and it can sound excellent.But, it's definitely a mastering issue as I'm also 'fortunate' enough to have a few albums from the early 80s onwards and some of it sounds as compressed and limited in bandwidth as the worst of MP3.
I try not to confuse sound quality with music quality - I've some Linn and Naim CDs and hi-res downloads where sound quality is top notch, 'music' quality not so much but that's definitely down to taste.
On the flip side I've a couple of RHCP albums on CD - good music (well, some of it) but absolutely terrible sound quality - acceptable in the car, painful under critical listening back at home.
Now, what prompted this thread - a certain, rather vocal 'member' on here recently had a link in his profile (now deleted when he took the huff
) to software which claimed to removed all the nasties whilst increasing dynamic headroom.I've asked him a few times to explain how it does this but the question was always avoided until it was suggested starting a new thread.
Well, here it is and here's his chance.
I have no interest in compressed music files so the software didn't really interest me until I spotted the claim that it would work with FLAC files too - now imagine that!
GBs of music files ripped as FLACs onto my NAS played through a variety of DACS including NOS and 192 upsampling all capable of being 'cleansed' by this software.
Great news.
Looking forward to the explanations.
TonyRPH said:
It's clear that most modern music is mastered to sound optimal on portables and other devices with limited dynamic range.
I have a Logitech Squeezebox radio next to my bed, and wake up to music from my own library every morning, and the heavily compressed stuff sounds the clearest (in that you can hear 'everything') which is what I would expect.
Play those same songs on my HiFi and it's a different story.
When the radio is playing the really good quality stuff, you only hear the loud parts - hence more dynamic range = less information conveyed on a low quality device.
There are various apps available to view the dynamic range of your songs, there is a plugin available for Foobar2000 and a favourite of mine is the Orban Loudness Meter
Here's a pretty poor example as demonstrated by Orban (this is 'Lazy' from 'Re-Machined - A Tribute To Deep Purple s Machine Head')
The opening segment features a solo organ hence the lower volume, but as the song progresses, you can see it's compressed to the max.
Needless to say, this sounds pretty poor on my HiFi...
By way of contrast, the lower image is 'My Way' by Frank Sinatra. You can see th ehuge difference in dynamic range.
EDIT: By compressed I mean the dynamic range is compressed (limited) and not mp3 compression.
Good post, cheers and an excellent way to visualise what we hear as crap.I have a Logitech Squeezebox radio next to my bed, and wake up to music from my own library every morning, and the heavily compressed stuff sounds the clearest (in that you can hear 'everything') which is what I would expect.
Play those same songs on my HiFi and it's a different story.
When the radio is playing the really good quality stuff, you only hear the loud parts - hence more dynamic range = less information conveyed on a low quality device.
There are various apps available to view the dynamic range of your songs, there is a plugin available for Foobar2000 and a favourite of mine is the Orban Loudness Meter
Here's a pretty poor example as demonstrated by Orban (this is 'Lazy' from 'Re-Machined - A Tribute To Deep Purple s Machine Head')
The opening segment features a solo organ hence the lower volume, but as the song progresses, you can see it's compressed to the max.
Needless to say, this sounds pretty poor on my HiFi...
By way of contrast, the lower image is 'My Way' by Frank Sinatra. You can see th ehuge difference in dynamic range.
EDIT: By compressed I mean the dynamic range is compressed (limited) and not mp3 compression.
Edited by TonyRPH on Wednesday 29th March 19:04
This miracle software I'm itching to read about seemed to offer a post-mastering answer to compression and clipped (over 0db) signals.
I'm hoping it's not simply a crap plug-in for yet another basic media player which actually does very little.
legzr1 said:
I've been fortunate enough to have heard vinyl played back on some really good systems (and an LP12....;)) and it can sound excellent.
This is not the thread for such talk!!! 
legzr1 said:
But, it's definitely a mastering issue as I'm also 'fortunate' enough to have a few albums from the early 80s onwards and some of it sounds as compressed and limited in bandwidth as the worst of MP3.
A lot of remastered vinyl is simply mastered from digital now. It's only the special (usually small) labels that master from original tapes.legzr1 said:
I try not to confuse sound quality with music quality - I've some Linn and Naim CDs and hi-res downloads where sound quality is top notch, 'music' quality not so much but that's definitely down to taste.
On the flip side I've a couple of RHCP albums on CD - good music (well, some of it) but absolutely terrible sound quality - acceptable in the car, painful under critical listening back at home.
This is a result of the reduced dynamic range as illustrated in my post above.On the flip side I've a couple of RHCP albums on CD - good music (well, some of it) but absolutely terrible sound quality - acceptable in the car, painful under critical listening back at home.
legzr1 said:
Now, what prompted this thread - a certain, rather vocal 'member' on here recently had a link in his profile (now deleted when he took the huff ) to software which claimed to removed all the nasties whilst increasing dynamic headroom.
I've asked him a few times to explain how it does this but the question was always avoided until it was suggested starting a new thread.
Well, here it is and here's his chance.
I have no interest in compressed music files so the software didn't really interest me until I spotted the claim that it would work with FLAC files too - now imagine that!
GBs of music files ripped as FLACs onto my NAS played through a variety of DACS including NOS and 192 upsampling all capable of being 'cleansed' by this software.
Great news.
Looking forward to the explanations.
Audacity has a 'declip' plugin, and my early experiments with it demonstrate an improvement in the sound quality - however - I suspect this is likely due to the overall reduction in (digital) levels which results in a cleaner, lower amplitude signal arriving at the DAC. ) to software which claimed to removed all the nasties whilst increasing dynamic headroom.I've asked him a few times to explain how it does this but the question was always avoided until it was suggested starting a new thread.
Well, here it is and here's his chance.
I have no interest in compressed music files so the software didn't really interest me until I spotted the claim that it would work with FLAC files too - now imagine that!
GBs of music files ripped as FLACs onto my NAS played through a variety of DACS including NOS and 192 upsampling all capable of being 'cleansed' by this software.
Great news.
Looking forward to the explanations.
Here is the original: (Lay Down Your Guns (with The Living End) - Jimmy Barnes) (Declipped version below)
Declipped version:
The overall amplitude has been reduced, however the dynamic range has not been restored.
I believe it's the reduction in amplitude that brings about the improvement.
TonyRPH said:
I believe it's the reduction in amplitude that brings about the improvement.
Yes, it seems the 'trick' is to lower the input level encouraging the user to up the volume levels on amp/ pre amp giving an 'increase' in perceived dynamic range.However, it all looks a little fake to me.
Imagine a program that could leave the signal intact where repair wasn't necessary but reconstruct the clipped, over-driven parts of the signal....
Tomorrow I think I'll dust down my AR eb101 and stick Now 7 on
legzr1 said:
<snip>
Imagine a program that could leave the signal intact where repair wasn't necessary but reconstruct the clipped, over-driven parts of the signal....
<snip>
I suspect that some reconstruction is possible based on adjacent values of the digital signal, and calculating the values to 'restore'.Imagine a program that could leave the signal intact where repair wasn't necessary but reconstruct the clipped, over-driven parts of the signal....
<snip>
Obviously there's more to it than that, and no doubt 'Globs' will be along shortly to tell me how wrong I am.
However - restoration must surely depend on how serious the clipping is - because of course - if 'x' bits have been lost in the clipping process how would we know how many (and at what amplitude and whether it's a '1' or '0' or LSB, MSB whatever*) to put back?
I can imagine that it could be reasonably effective on lightly clipped material but that's all.
After all, once the bits have been removed, the are gone forever...
- I'm probably talking out of my arse here.
By way of background to the discussion:
There is a huge difference between mastering techniques in the analogue and digital domains.
The similarities exist where the mastering is performed by ear - this is not as common as you'd hope.
In the days of vinyl there was no option - it was done by ear using manual control as the master was cut.
The output from the cartridge/stylus is directly proportional to the rate of change of stylus movement. This means that as the stylus moves in towards the centre of the record the output voltage falls (the record moves slower past the stylus).
Also, the lower the frequency, the lower the output voltage - although the equalisation goes some way to compensate for this there is still the problem that reproduction of low frequencies necessitates large stylus excursions to achieve reasonable output voltages.
A good disc cutter would be able to cope with these problems - gradually adjusting levels to ensure that the output remains constant across the disc, and making sure the groove spacing allows low frequency reproduction without interfering with adjacent grooves whilst still maintaining enough playing duration. All this whilst making sure that it sounds acceptable.
(If you listen to a typical multi-track k-tel type compilation you will hear that the bass has been reduced so that they have enough groove spacing to fit all the tracks on! )
In the digital world it should be better - you don't have issues with frequency or speed dependant levels plus you have greater dynamic range. However you also have the ability to automate the mastering process. So a lot of stuff gets put through something like a TC Finaliser to get the sound the publisher wants. This is despite a lot of masters being well produced and sounding as the producer wants.
There are mastering companies who will take the time and effort to perform a manual master, but you often don't have control of the publishing process.
The chance of inaudiably removing the effects of the mastering process when it's been by something akin to a Finaliser is pretty much zero.
There is a huge difference between mastering techniques in the analogue and digital domains.
The similarities exist where the mastering is performed by ear - this is not as common as you'd hope.
In the days of vinyl there was no option - it was done by ear using manual control as the master was cut.
The output from the cartridge/stylus is directly proportional to the rate of change of stylus movement. This means that as the stylus moves in towards the centre of the record the output voltage falls (the record moves slower past the stylus).
Also, the lower the frequency, the lower the output voltage - although the equalisation goes some way to compensate for this there is still the problem that reproduction of low frequencies necessitates large stylus excursions to achieve reasonable output voltages.
A good disc cutter would be able to cope with these problems - gradually adjusting levels to ensure that the output remains constant across the disc, and making sure the groove spacing allows low frequency reproduction without interfering with adjacent grooves whilst still maintaining enough playing duration. All this whilst making sure that it sounds acceptable.
(If you listen to a typical multi-track k-tel type compilation you will hear that the bass has been reduced so that they have enough groove spacing to fit all the tracks on! )
In the digital world it should be better - you don't have issues with frequency or speed dependant levels plus you have greater dynamic range. However you also have the ability to automate the mastering process. So a lot of stuff gets put through something like a TC Finaliser to get the sound the publisher wants. This is despite a lot of masters being well produced and sounding as the producer wants.
There are mastering companies who will take the time and effort to perform a manual master, but you often don't have control of the publishing process.
The chance of inaudiably removing the effects of the mastering process when it's been by something akin to a Finaliser is pretty much zero.
LordLoveLength said:
<snip>
In the digital world it should be better - you don't have issues with frequency or speed dependant levels plus you have greater dynamic range. However you also have the ability to automate the mastering process. So a lot of stuff gets put through something like a TC Finaliser to get the sound the publisher wants. This is despite a lot of masters being well produced and sounding as the producer wants.
There are mastering companies who will take the time and effort to perform a manual master, but you often don't have control of the publishing process.
<snip>
Very interesting, thanks for that.In the digital world it should be better - you don't have issues with frequency or speed dependant levels plus you have greater dynamic range. However you also have the ability to automate the mastering process. So a lot of stuff gets put through something like a TC Finaliser to get the sound the publisher wants. This is despite a lot of masters being well produced and sounding as the producer wants.
There are mastering companies who will take the time and effort to perform a manual master, but you often don't have control of the publishing process.
<snip>
I just had a look at the TC Finalizer website and the following headline features stand out.
TC Finalizer website said:
In short, Finalizer 96K dramatically enhances your material, creating
that "radio ready" sound that was previously unattainable outside a
professional mastering house.
Finalizer 96K gives you all the features you need to add the finishing touch of magic to your mix. The multi-band processor will make your mix sound punchier and crispier, allowing you to easily turn your demo tapes into mastered recordings.
If you have a particular external device that you want to add to the arsenal of mastering tools, you can simply insert it via either the analog inputs or digitally via AES/EBU, S/PDIF or Tos-link. Likewise, you can also insert internal effects - for instance if you want to refine the overall EQ before compressing the signal.
Sobering reading.that "radio ready" sound that was previously unattainable outside a
professional mastering house.
- Punch - Add a Touch of Magic to Your Production. Make it Stand Out from the Crowd.
- Clarity - 96 kHz Internal and External Processing. No Compromises Allowed.
- Versatility - More than Multi-band Compression. A Complete Range of Mastering Tools.
Finalizer 96K gives you all the features you need to add the finishing touch of magic to your mix. The multi-band processor will make your mix sound punchier and crispier, allowing you to easily turn your demo tapes into mastered recordings.
If you have a particular external device that you want to add to the arsenal of mastering tools, you can simply insert it via either the analog inputs or digitally via AES/EBU, S/PDIF or Tos-link. Likewise, you can also insert internal effects - for instance if you want to refine the overall EQ before compressing the signal.
One has to wonder if it's capable of simply converting the original master to digital without any change to the sound.
ETA: And yes, I remember those LPs with reduced bass to fit all the tracks on - quite a daft idea!
TonyRPH said:
After all, once the bits have been removed, the are gone forever...
LordLoveLength said:
The chance of inaudiably removing the effects of the mastering process when it's been by something akin to a Finaliser is pretty much zero.
That seems to be the obvious conclusion 
Interesting comments about 'cutting' vinyl.
After years on hifi fora you get to read lots of this sort of stuff from those with hands on experience - some of the most interesting comments came from ex-producers who spends weeks and months creating and mixing a 'perfect' sound just for an (unnamed) artist to insist on 'I want it LOUDER'.
I was aware of the requirement for a deeper cut for decent bass response - I'm wondering if that's the reason that 12" singles make up around 95% of the best sounding records in my (limited) collection.
Strange that, when direct to digital recording has been available for years, sound 'quality' seems to have taken a hammering and those options in Tony's quote don't surprise me one bit.
Still waiting on expert comment from the 'engineer'....
legzr1 said:
<snip>
I was aware of the requirement for a deeper cut for decent bass response - I'm wondering if that's the reason that 12" singles make up around 95% of the best sounding records in my (limited) collection.
12" records (singles) played at 45RPM often sound better too - the top end response is usually better.I was aware of the requirement for a deeper cut for decent bass response - I'm wondering if that's the reason that 12" singles make up around 95% of the best sounding records in my (limited) collection.
As you have found, the bass is often better due to there being more room for the groove.
I have a couple of good 12" singles from the 70's / 80's with excellent bass.
I also have what could be deemed as an early highly compressed (but it isn't because it's analogue) 12" single - it is Strangers in the night from Saxon - and at the time boasted of being recorded +3dB louder!
legzr1 said:
Still waiting on expert comment from the 'engineer'....
I have emailed him with an invitation to join the thread!Although I don't agree with it 100%, I use this site as a guide to which versions of a particular album have the best sound quality and which ones are to be avoided.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/
Of all the versions of Songs From The Big Chair I have, the Blu-ray Audio is the best but I still prefer the original CD from 1985.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=tear...
1985 Original Release, 2006 Deluxe Edition, 2014 Blu-Ray Audio
2014 Super Deluxe Edition
BTW, tomorrow is Dynamic Range Day.
http://dynamicrangeday.co.uk/
http://dr.loudness-war.info/
Of all the versions of Songs From The Big Chair I have, the Blu-ray Audio is the best but I still prefer the original CD from 1985.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=tear...
1985 Original Release, 2006 Deluxe Edition, 2014 Blu-Ray Audio
2014 Super Deluxe Edition
BTW, tomorrow is Dynamic Range Day.
http://dynamicrangeday.co.uk/
Edited by mp3manager on Thursday 30th March 02:53
The main reason I try and stick to 24bit audio is not because I think I can hear the difference of those extra 8bits but because the majority of the time more effort has been made over the (re)master. I'm expecting this to slowly dry up as record companies realise this is an easy way to make money as they (think) they can charge more for 24bit or better audio and start to cut corners and even start pushing auto tuned rubbish via the same route when 24 bit (and even 32bit) becomes more popular in the name of increased margins.
I adore Vinyl but it is a similar experience to driving a classic car, you know the audio is ultimately not the best possible quality, much like even the fastest classic cars cannot match the same as their modern equivalent on the track, and sometimes you accept that because you want that nostalgic experience, but sometimes you just want to go balls to the wall.
I adore Vinyl but it is a similar experience to driving a classic car, you know the audio is ultimately not the best possible quality, much like even the fastest classic cars cannot match the same as their modern equivalent on the track, and sometimes you accept that because you want that nostalgic experience, but sometimes you just want to go balls to the wall.
legzr1 said:
Now, what prompted this thread - a certain, rather vocal 'member' on here recently had a link in his profile (now deleted when he took the huff ) to software which claimed to removed all the nasties whilst increasing dynamic headroom.
I've asked him a few times to explain how it does this but the question was always avoided until it was suggested starting a new thread.
Aimed at me then. Disappointing to see you starting this thread off in such a negative manner. ) to software which claimed to removed all the nasties whilst increasing dynamic headroom.I've asked him a few times to explain how it does this but the question was always avoided until it was suggested starting a new thread.
This is a long post because the issues raised cannot be answered by pithy one liners, so none of this please:
legzr1 said:
You appear to like the sound of your own voice so rather than encourage another rambling post from you I'll be brief.
from http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...You label me 'vocal' but YOU attacked my considered recommendation (to the OP) to improve a budget system your response was:
legzr1 said:
So many sweeping statements, so little time to correct them all.
I then simply backed my recommendations with articles, specs, data and listening experience. Which you then instantly dismissed and accused me of rambling. Duh.And far from avoiding the subject of clipping (that you brought up remember!), I did attempt to engage but you failed to define your terms and dismissed my replies.
legzr1 said:
how does your media player remove embedded clipping?
What is 'embedded clipping'?Additionally you seem to struggle with the concept of compression which seems to be affecting your ability to understand the issues. I did ask you about this in the other thread but you chose not to answer so I'll display them again here:
legzr1 said:
Globs said:
Define compression: There are 3 types: Audio, digital lossless, digital lossy. I presume you mean the latter - e.g. MP3s, but you don't have to play MP3s - you could play FLACs instead - a much better choice.
In the case of MP3s - so I'd have to ask: Do you consider the waveforms from MP3s to be that different to the original?
And the 2nd - more obvious question: Have you taken an MP3 into Audacity and had a look at the waveform?
If you meant audio compression - then funnily enough the act of declipping itself adds dynamic range so although still compressed, it is still closer to the original.
It's all detail and a quest for fidelity - which is really what HiFi used to be about.
I get you're trying to sell something but how do you equate 'a quest for fidelity' with a business selling something to 'improve' lossy, clipped material?In the case of MP3s - so I'd have to ask: Do you consider the waveforms from MP3s to be that different to the original?
And the 2nd - more obvious question: Have you taken an MP3 into Audacity and had a look at the waveform?
If you meant audio compression - then funnily enough the act of declipping itself adds dynamic range so although still compressed, it is still closer to the original.
It's all detail and a quest for fidelity - which is really what HiFi used to be about.
legzr1 said:
the miracle software that does amazing things with compressed (lossy) music files and clipped (saturated, squared sine wave) content.
I've asked you a few times to explain your terms of 'embedded clipping' and 'compression' but these questions were always avoided. Without that I can only guess at your question, I tried this and you accused me of avoiding it - but it's a simple case of lack of data.legzr1 said:
Well, here it is and here's his chance.
So, thanks for giving me 'my chance', legzr1 said:
I've been around long enough to realise condescension and arrogance doesn't always have to be a prerequisite
because you giving me 'my chance' is not condescending or arrogant at all is it?I'm answering here only because I like chatting with Tony, not for your benefit. If you behave I will answer your questions, If you don't, I have better things to do.
TERMS
Before we understand mastering issues we need to be certain we can define the terms of reference. The route that waveforms represented by digital data takes to get from the mastering engineers mixing desk an 24bit to the input to your DAC or digital amplifier is not really relevant here.
So we can dismiss both lossy and lossless digital compression methods as well as bluetooth from this discussion. Incidentally I've not heard bluetooth audio system that sounds any good yet, but people assure me they exist. While it's true that some mastering is targeted for lossy formats that's not the elephant in the room.
1. Audio compression
This is the type of compression that we need to concentrate on here.
This is when the signal is subject to a non-linear level control which forms a curved transfer function of input level to output level. There are various algorithms that do this and therefore it's a difficult thing to combat due to the almost infinite number of ways to compress audio level.
This is the biggest failing of the RIAA IME. They used to (loosely and incorrectly) standardise the vinyl frequency compensation curve, and had enough power IMO to mandate a standard-light or zero compression policy for digital audio and let the device manufacturer do their own compression to suit the device. This method would have given us great sound in everything from portable radios to HiFi, radio, car stereos etc.
However the RIAA has stood by and done exactly nothing as recording engineers, many under pressure, have proceeded to mix for the lowest common denominator - an act that seems a strangely popular activity in modern business and politics.
Today then we have the situation where the artists spend a great deal of time and effort making a great sound (in many cases anyway - 'popular' 'music' today is another subject), and then the final mix is:
1) Compressed (Usually). Note: This is audio level compression as defined earlier.
2) Limited (often but not always)
3) Clipped (often but not always)
The best way to avoid this is actually buying Apple's 'Mastered for iTunes': https://www.justmastering.com/article-masteredfori...
because this is the only method of going back to the original mix/tapes and getting a copy that hasn't been subjected to 2) or 3).
Also never buy remasters: always go for the older CD copy and try also buying from Japan, Germany etc as the UK and US copies are likely worse (sometimes they differ). Some have even digitised their vinyl to escape this.
If you already have a digital music collection your chances for a good sound are more limited. Note that most people don't believe in 3) until they see it, Audacity is a good tool to inspect your music files with and has a setting where it will show clipping in red on the waveform. Some clipping will not show however as the definition of 'clipping' is subject to uncertainty, some is a straight digital single value, others allow movement of a few hundred values so one could argue that it's hard-limited, but looking at the waveform it appears as a pure clip.
Dynamics
However the big picture that Audacity http://www.audacityteam.org/ will give you is the overall envelope of the sound. In general music from the 1980s will look like you'd expect a music waveform to look like, over time there is a general trend toward the waveform looking like a brick. This is really the key damage: The eradication of dynamics from our music.
Fixing dynamics
Dynamics are affected by the general compression and the harder limiting, two processes that affect the same thing but in combination sadly multiply the difficulty in restoring the original dynamics. Dynamics are therefore VERY difficult to restore.
Therefore the latest bland-rock will always have an acoustic guitar string that's as loud as a snare drum being beaten in a drum solo unlike when vinyl was king and a loud drum could make you jump. IMO this is why voice is king today, no one really notices the instruments with the dynamics stripped out.
Clipping
Limiting doesn't always manage to tame the biggest peaks and mastering engineers often choose to limit a little softer to help the general dynamics and just clip the large peaks off. The handling of these clips is therefore handed back to the playback device that has to decide what to do. In some pro-audio DACs these clips push the DAC into overload/saturation and you'll hear a sound like a loose wire. In CD players the manufacturers know that the customer would return the player rather than blame the record label; so they have to give the DAC enough headroom so the clip is basically handled as just part of the music and will re-appear in your speakers as an almost inaudible clip.
These clips therefore don't usually sound out individually, but for ears used to listening to better waveforms it will sound tiring and harsh. The youth today are generally oblivious to this as they have't heard any different and think that's what it sounds like. It's a race to the bottom.
Fixing clipping
As Tony has said above there are various software packages around that claim to fix clipping, they all try to guess the missing part of the waveform based upon the context and the aim is the same: To replace the flat-top with some music. It's not a difficult process but not widespread as it's not widely recognised as a problem. Your teenage son rarely complains about the lack of dynamics on the latest Kasabian track as he's got more important issues. The declipping process is simply:
1. Determine the threshold between clipped and unclipped parts of the waveform
2. Edit the section with something that seems to fit, from the other channel or from nearby,
3. Adjust the levels (i.e. make it quieter so it doesn't clip the format).
The issue with these packages is that you have to read the digital file in, write it out, and then play it, which frankly isn't as easy as slotting in a CD or cranking up MPD or iTunes, WinAmp etc. I discovered this as I was involved in writing a declipper that did this and it's main user base was professionals who's recorded the odd video or audio with the sound track too hot. I.e. Good for one off application and fiddling, but too much work for general use.
Additionally there's the issue of re-coding and in the case of an MP3 that someone wanted to keep as an MP3 there'd be an additional decode-encode phase which is unwise for quality. Also you have to manage two sets of music, one original, one using the latest settings you found to run over them. This original declipped has now been replaced with a media player which means the digital files can be read in, processed and then played directly, which has been made available here: http://www.cutestudio.net/
There are various pieces of software around to reconstruct this lost information using 'best guess' methods, but essentially the information is missing, but one thing that was added to the media player is a quality index - much like the one Tony refers to - so you can see the original quality before you choose a track.
That is quite instructive as it indicates the trend in poorer mastering over time. For instance Adele has handily named her albums after her age and the deterioration of sound quality from 19 to 21 and from 21 to 25 is quite marked. It's the same for all the other artists too, Pulse from Floyd mangles stuff that's in good shape in their previous albums etc.
So Leg there is no magic, no need to keep attacking me, you could try being friendly and civil instead. The fact that I'm involved with software that tries to counter the poor mastering of today shouldn't be sufficient reason to attack me TBH, I really can't see what's wrong with that.
SUMMARY
The advice I give people who worry about the latest DAC, the quality of lossy formats of the brand of speaker wire is to have a look in Audacity at the actual waveform that they are playing. HiFi magazines don't help either, regularly going hyperbolic over minutiae as they feed the latest brick shaped mastering disaster into the front end, the quality of the source has come full circle from when Ivor Tiefenbrun taught us how important it was to today when even discussing it causes controversy.
I doubt many who spend hundreds on the latest Naim player have any idea how pre-distorted the source is, my advice for people who've spend a lot on a CD player would be to stick to classical and older CDs, the latest modern pop is not HiFi by any stretch of the imagination.
Globs said:
Incidentally I've not heard bluetooth audio system that sounds any good yet, but people assure me they exist.
Have you tried APTX? While I would still rather than a wired connection if possible, APTX, particular the aptX Lossless variant is considerably better on a good system than normal Bluetooth when paired with suitable lossless source media. Now that the next version of Android will have APTX baked in (only a handful of manufacturers did so before) we should see more devices both source and amplification that support it.Globs said:
Stuff
Please, where is the link I asked for?The link that was in your prolile but you decided to remove.
The link I've asked you for in two separate threads.
Provide that, allow me to read it again and then we can get onto your first post in this thread (which contains some good and interesting stuff as well as a little butt hurt but Im sure we can get over that).
Come on, link please.
For the record, in the 'other' thread you were asked to drop the sweeping statements and condensension based on this little nugget:
Globs said:
Sorry you can't handle that many concepts or statements, there was a lot of info compressed into that post.
I should have dumbed it down. Just go slowly.
Pick out one item you disagree with and I'll explain it for you in terms you should be able to understand.
A few members called you out on the sweeping statements.I should have dumbed it down. Just go slowly.
Pick out one item you disagree with and I'll explain it for you in terms you should be able to understand.
Your response?
Globs said:
Some generalisation of brands is required for casual 'what speakers' sorry if I was too sweeping there
So, progress of sorts.Link please.
Oh, what's this hiding in the text?
http://www.cutestudio.net
Be back later
mp3manager said:
Although I don't agree with it 100%, I use this site as a guide to which versions of a particular album have the best sound quality and which ones are to be avoided.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/
Of all the versions of Songs From The Big Chair I have, the Blu-ray Audio is the best but I still prefer the original CD from 1985.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=tear...
1985 Original Release, 2006 Deluxe Edition, 2014 Blu-Ray Audio
2014 Super Deluxe Edition
BTW, tomorrow is Dynamic Range Day.
http://dynamicrangeday.co.uk/
You missed the best version. A Gold CD re-mastered and issued by Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab.http://dr.loudness-war.info/
Of all the versions of Songs From The Big Chair I have, the Blu-ray Audio is the best but I still prefer the original CD from 1985.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=tear...
1985 Original Release, 2006 Deluxe Edition, 2014 Blu-Ray Audio
2014 Super Deluxe Edition
BTW, tomorrow is Dynamic Range Day.
http://dynamicrangeday.co.uk/
Edited by mp3manager on Thursday 30th March 02:53
In order to bypass the crappy mastering of some discs I tend to buy the SACD, DVD-Audio or FLAC 24 bit versions of the albums. Depeche Mode output up to Playing the Angel is all available in SACD. Queens back catalogue was released in Japan in SACD a few years ago and a fair number of albums were released in DVD-Audio in the early 2000s. Simple Minds, Peter Gabriel, Bryan Ferry, Sting, Propaganda and The Human League all had SACD or DVD-A. Well worth getting if you can afford it. Recently Gabriel amd NUSE amongst others have released 24 bit recordings available to download.
Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff