Music Into Noise: The Destructive Use Of Dynamic Range Compression part 2

i think stuff you buy from "itunes plus" is 256kpbpbbpbs and normal itunes is 128?

Something interesting I've noted, though; if you change your ripping /importing preferences on iTunes, it affects the bitrate of stuff you buy from them as well as what yu rip from your own CDs. I dunno if it's all the time, but I've bought stuff and it's come through at 256kbps same as I rip it, and one time as 128kbps when I'd forgotten to change settings after ripping something lower.

― Sickamous Mouthall (Scik Mouthy), Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:06 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

there's a little '+' symbol next to the higher bitrate tracks

Ah. I don't buy stuff off iTunes anywhere near often enough to have noticed that.

??? OK Computer is smashed to fuck!

"OK Computer" is around the average volume of 1997 albums. Which may be slightly too much, but not even remotely like the madness of today.

Beyond its average loudness though Geir, it just doesn't sound that good. Radiohead records don't.

I was put off buying things from iTunes after I bought the entire 2007 UGK album and it was virtually unlistenable - I have a HIGH tolerance for bad sound but this was just utter shit - every time the bass drum hit, there was a mysterious lack of any bass yet this lack also managed to crunchify and degrade all the other bits of the track as well. the whole thing sounded like it had been chewed up, spit out, left to bake in the sun for several weeks, been vomited on and then covered with a hard candy glaze, eaten again and then shit out into a steel bucket

xxxpost

Yeah, the iTunes Plus tracks are DRM-free, 256-kbps AAC. They don't sound bad at all, provided the source track is listenable in the first place.

What depresses me is that even with cheap storage and ever-faster broadband making lossless music files more practical for the mass market, I doubt there'll ever be enough demand for an major online music retailer to offer any.

but yeah, Tracer, the old 128-kbps stuff, yuck

My understanding is that music labels are responsible for encoding the tracks they submit to the iTunes store, not Apple. Seems like there's a lot of variance in quality for some stuff.

Yeah it's weird, I have tons of 128K files and most of them sound pretty OK to me - I don't know what the hell they did to that UGK album

i've been looking at used stuff and certain cd player models are still in demand used...what do you have?

Copland CDA 266.

Audiolab amps have retained some of their value (esp the original UK-made gear, before Tag McLaren took them over) - a pair of 8000M monoblocs and an 8000Q (sans remote control - lost that years ago) could well fetch £500+ on eBay.

I have these idle notions of flogging the lot from time to time when completely broke. I barely get a chance to listen to anything at home now but I know Pam & the kids have music almost all day (but some kind of streaming device plus the Cyrus amp and B&W monitors we've got in the loft would more than suffice for that; in fact, it would be miles better in terms of sheer convenience and footprint).

I can't really imagine moving all this stuff (or the vinyl/CDs) ever again, so, at some point in the next 5-10 years, it'll all go...

By the way I think we all need to stop and appreciate the greatness of this image, which accompanies the audioholics article linked above (I hope this displays properly):

http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-news/kids-prefer-poor-quality-mp3/image_mini

it must be really awful to notice music sounding 'shit' the way some people here do. my sympathies.

i've pretty much switched to VBR when ripping so wouldn't mind buying tracks with varialble bit rate either as long as the average was high enough (256 probably OK)

It seems to my ears like the sound check feature on iTunes compensates for differing loudness to some extent (as it's supposed to). For instance, it makes the peaks from an Esquivel disc mastered in 1994 sound louder than tracks from Sleater-Kinney's The Woods. It's not quite the same as a built-in compressor, but it would theoretically make it possible for music to be mastered dynamically while allowing listeners to have relatively consistent overall volume among different tracks.

But maybe mere consistency of volume isn't what people actually want, if they do prefer the overtly harsh sound.

Since this thread is about both kinds of compression, a good example is something like an early Who single. Kit Lambert and Pete Townshend would have compressed the hell out of it in the production stage as an artistic choice for impact, punch, sound good on a transistor radio etc.

Afterward, it would be mastered for 45, LP, comp LP, early CD, remastered CD, digitally remastered audiophile vinyl, SACD, original analog tape proper digital remaster/remix, surround sound HD DVD-A.

All I want is the full dynamic range high resolution reproduction of what the band heard in the playback the day they sent their final mix off. Or maybe I'm looking for an exact reproduction of what the 45 sounded like on a normal record player.

I don't know how anybody could even determine if Radiohead sounds bad or not, it's a completely manufactured music. The only thing that could sound wrong is if someone at the factory messed up what the creators sent out. Or if the label destroyed the sound during a format shift. Meaning, unless I hear a band member complaining about a failure, I assume every sound on an OK Computer CD including compression artifacts is an artistic choice and only right or wrong as a matter of taste.

A low bit-rate after the fact reproduction, on the other hand, diminishes the intent, and I think it is too bad that many people don't know the difference or care. Ipods will play higher resolution music either through itunes or third party software, and can still hold and play more music at one time than any one can listen to in a reasonable time period. You bought it though, so use it as you like.

OK Computer is supposed to have a flat shiny modernistic plastic sheen over the whole sound. That's kind of the point.

Indeed it is. Sadly a lot of people copied it without realising the semiotics of it.

In Rainbows though I would say is simply too loud, too bright, mixed with elements in odd proportions. To me it's a pretty standard example of what's wrong with modern mainstream rock sound. There's delicacy inherent in many of the tunes, melodies, and arrangements, but it's really not there in the actual physical qualities of the sound.

Johnny Greenwood has been very keen to point out at various points that he's not an audiophile, that they're not a band into high fidelity sound. This is not surprising.

Not sure if anyone cares, but I know Mouthy enjoyed 'Open Season'. Encouraging news on BSP's 'Man of Aran' soundtrack:

http://yanbsp.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/further-notes-that-i-don’t-mind-if-anyone-reads-or-don’t-reads/

"Basically turn up your volume. Because it sounds quieter but is in fact louder."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/arts/music/28pare.html

Current R&B is “crushed” for radio play, Maxwell said: “It’s made to have no peaks, no valleys. And we wanted, like, landscape. I wanted the music to sound like, ‘Oh my god, I’m looking at a vista, like I see a mountain over here, and water, and some clouds.’ “ As the album was about to be mastered, Maxwell decided that it had already grown too compressed — its ups and downs leveled out — and sent it back for a remix.

!!

nick do know retribution gospel choir? (sparhawk from low's new band)

anyway that record is BIZARRE sounding...i'd be curious if you've heard it

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b276/oliver8bit/comparison_powerless.jpg

I did a needledrop recording the 2xLP vinyl "Embryonic" and at left is the vinyl and at right is the CD. The vinyl sounds much better to me, and as you can see above is less compressed. If you're curious you can find my rip on the d3m0n01d.

Were you trying to post waveforms there?

The new retribution is mixed by a guy who has also mixed britney spears, vanessa hudgens, avril lavigne. I think Alan is friends with the guy and thought it would be fun to have a more glossy amped up sound as RGC is his more 'rock' project. fwiw i think it kind of sounds like boston in places - and i mean that in a very good way, it's a really fun lp although the mix probably goes a little too far in the compressed direction for my liking.

No mention of this followup article, here?

hey adam thanks, i love embyronic but frankly find the CD tiring to listen to....will definitely buy it on vinyl based on your post, was kinda on the fence about it

"Embryonic"'s vinyl mix should be released on CD for maximum sound quality in every possible way.

(x-x-post) That's a very encouraging article.

There's a DVD audio release of Embryonic as well but I haven't checked it out. I wonder if the compression/volume is different on that as well. After reading that article (and thanks so much for posting it!) I suppose not. I do know that mastering for vinyl you must take volume into account to prevent the needle from jumping during overwhelming passages.

Embryonic on vinyl not only sounds right but _feels_ right, like it's some lost artifact of experimental 1970s prog.

That is a striking difference, in terms of all that peak info being lost on the digital. Just so I am understanding this correctly, you do set a recording level when ripping the vinyl, right? I can see the differences in the peaks there, so they are obvious, but it seems like the *absolute* volume levels aren't comparable since presumably you are adjusting the level when it goes into the computer. But clearly the peak info is lost in the digital in this case. I think sometimes people post wave forms from vinyl vs. CD here without understanding that you have to set the peak at close to the same level to get a look at the differences in compression.

Yeah you're totally right there. Thing is I plugged the audio out straight from my turntable's RCA jack into the line in on my computer and had the volume set at 100%. Anyways I just loaded the files up and amplified the vinyl WAV by 190% and the top volume looks close to the CD version. Here's the new comparison:

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b276/oliver8bit/comparison.jpg

Yeah, that is a huge difference in dynamic range there, need to get this one on vinyl!

lolllllllllllllllll:

http://blog.winamp.com/2010/01/19/how-to-make-your-mp3-sound-like-vinyl/

http://www.blogcdn.com/blog.winamp.com/media/2010/01/izotope-vinyl.jpg

LOL (Would want to fiddle with the year button)

"Of course, in this case sound quality means making it sound realistically bad, and we spent significant time tuning models and samples and developing 64-bit signal processing for noise shaping, distortion, EQ and dithering."

Holy crap, this is the George Bush of software applications. We are slowly sinking into the sea.

"Crackling Noises OK. Do Not Correct!"

um, dithering anyone?

it's kinda funny how much people are amazed when they come over and i put on a record that's new or in good condition and there's hardly any noise or crackles and stuff...

they should have marketed that winamp thing as *izotope noize*. for budding merzbows.

that response article is interesting. quick question, does mp3gain do the same job as replaygain? is one better than the other?

now you can make your own Gucci Mane 78s

no wax cylinder option no credability

that response article is interesting. quick question, does mp3gain do the same job as replaygain? is one better than the other? ― NI, Tuesday, 16 February 2010 17:26 (20 minutes ago)

iirc, there are differences between the two- for instance, in terms of where the gain information is written (At least last time I read about it). There are posts about it on hydrogen audio forums and in the FAQ.

ok, looks like I mis-spoke and should have checked before I posted. Anyhow, 'replaygain' seems to be a generic term for the process, whereas mp3gain and the 'replay gain' scanner in foobar, and specific implementations. As for how they can differ- browse this

ARE specific implementations

I don't think the peaks being visually more prominent in the vinyl-to-digital transfer necessarily means that the overall dynamic range is greater. Any time you transfer from vinyl, even if the source for the vinyl master is basically the original CD master with the volume turned down, you'll see peaks that look more "natural."

Waveform Plots Considered Harmful

excellent link, thanks! I didn't know any of that stuff.

lol at this:

Audio engineers use an "RMS" value that is conceptually about the same as ReplayGain, and shares its faults. However, it is an acceptable figure of merit proving that Iggy Pop is a crappy producer.

The-Dream, "Fancy"

http://i47.tinypic.com/xp77zm.jpg

i feel it's only fair as a patented annoying vinyl fan to give a great big shout-out to all the people who made AMAZING sounding CDs that I heard last year. digital rules! seriously, i heard so much great electronic and electro-acoustic music on cd last year. there are people who really know what they are doing when they make music for CD. the problem is a lot of them are making music that not a lot of people hear.

Dynamic range day is on my 'stag do'.

http://productionadvice.co.uk/dynamic-range-day/