Audio Annex Houston GTG - The JeffMackwood Challenge

[Flint]

In order to make any comparison, it is absolutely critical that the "loudness" be the same for every version of the track. Most pro-grade audio editing tools (I use WaveLab) have a relative loudness meter you can use which allows for correlating the basic levels of any two tracks. In most cases, overly compressed tracks are "louder" at a given volume setting than more dynamic tracks. This is why the more dynamic recordings sound less exciting to listeners.

This whole debate used to be called a dynamic war, now it is a loudness war. We call it a loudness war because that is what they are addressing my chopping off all the dynamic peaks - they can boost the overall general "loudness" of the audio when the peaks are removed.

 

[heeman]

Jeff,

THANKS!!!

This was a lot of fun, of course not scientific, but activities like this don't have to be!!

Being a subject hobby (as I think the results show), we all have different opinions and one specfic was our own interputation of "Dynamic Impact".

To further chase the rabbit down the rabbit hole and debate this issue further will be fun for others, however I am done commenting.

It was a fun excersize and hope that there are others like it at future GTG's!

 

[Yesfan70]

I'm definitely going to have to try this as I have the Bluray and remaster versions of Moving Pictures.

Just waiting on the rest of my speakers to get here...........

 

[heeman]

I'm definitely going to have to try this as I have the Bluray and remaster versions of Moving Pictures.

Just waiting on the rest of my speakers to get here...........

You will also need a DJ to load and unload the Disc's to insure that your listening is un-biased!

 

[Deleted member 133]

1) With apologies to Jeff, this is not really a test of the original "Rope premise" (or comment, or statement, whatever; with no disrespect at all to Rope) - which was about ORIGINAL recordings in general being less dynamic / more compressed - NOT about whether a remaster of some sort after the original album was more compressed.

Pauly,

You may recall from the original thread / posts that led to this challenge that I attempted to seek clarity on this matter. In the end The Rope Challenge was based on the paragraph quoted in my first post in this thread. Insofar as I managed to come up with four (4) rather than two (2) CD/discs (one of which was a BD) then yes it was not a 100% test of the original "Rope premise." If I had chosen only the original and first remaster I submit that it would have been.

In any case it's been fodder for great discussion (and then some), and as Heeman pointed out to me, the only time where all of ten of us managed to be in the HT at the same time!!!

Jeff

 

[Yesfan70]

I'm definitely going to have to try this as I have the Bluray and remaster versions of Moving Pictures.

Just waiting on the rest of my speakers to get here...........

You will also need a DJ to load and unload the Disc's to insure that your listening is un-biased!

I got Big Ben (4rings4life) to help me on that. An added benefit is my gear has been moved behind the couch, so that would make the testing better (can't see what's being loaded/unloaded in the player)

Now If I could just get his tall lanky ass to post more on here..............

 

[Yesfan70]

1) With apologies to Jeff, this is not really a test of the original "Rope premise" (or comment, or statement, whatever; with no disrespect at all to Rope) - which was about ORIGINAL recordings in general being less dynamic / more compressed - NOT about whether a remaster of some sort after the original album was more compressed.

Pauly,

You may recall from the original thread / posts that led to this challenge that I attempted to seek clarity on this matter. In the end The Rope Challenge was based on the paragraph quoted in my first post in this thread. Insofar as I managed to come up with four (4) rather than two (2) CD/discs (one of which was a BD) then yes it was not a 100% test of the original "Rope premise." If I had chosen only the original and first remaster I submit that it would have been.

In any case it's been fodder for great discussion (and then some), and as Heeman pointed out to me, the only time where all of ten of us managed to be in the HT at the same time!!!

Jeff

Personally the fact that you added the BD and also a "bumped volume" version of the original makes this whole thing more appealing to me and more valid. Wished I could have been there for that. The only thing I found confusing was some of the results like the recent CD remaster over the BD version. Aren't those discs cut from the same remaster cloth? I'd imagine the CD version is just scaled down to 16 bits for CD playback. Besides that, they should be identical sonically if they used the same master tapes for both.

 

[Towen7]

Aren't those discs cut from the same remaster cloth? I'd imagine the CD version is just scaled down to 16 bits for CD playback. Besides that, they should be identical sonically if they used the same master tapes for both.

This conversation seems focused on remastered tracks but I gathered the point of the OP to be that all modern recordings lack dynamics. How can we know what material was available to the engineer? Or the quality of the material? Or the tools? Or his/her ability to use them?

I'm fascinated not only by the topic, but by the audiophile's need to declare that recording A is superior or inferior to recording B despite, lack of agreement among people who hear them in real world environments.

From my perspective there are definitely some bad and over compressed recordings, both originals and rematers. That doesn't mean that all modern recordings are bad and all modern remasters are worse than their original release.

 

[PaulyT]

The only thing I found confusing was some of the results like the recent CD remaster over the BD version. Aren't those discs cut from the same remaster cloth? I'd imagine the CD version is just scaled down to 16 bits for CD playback. Besides that, they should be identical sonically if they used the same master tapes for both.

Right, that was exactly my point of confusion as well, hence my wondering if the re-encoding of the bd version was affecting sq.

 

[PaulyT]

1) With apologies to Jeff, this is not really a test of the original "Rope premise" (or comment, or statement, whatever; with no disrespect at all to Rope) - which was about ORIGINAL recordings in general being less dynamic / more compressed - NOT about whether a remaster of some sort after the original album was more compressed.

Pauly,

You may recall from the original thread / posts that led to this challenge that I attempted to seek clarity on this matter. In the end The Rope Challenge was based on the paragraph quoted in my first post in this thread. Insofar as I managed to come up with four (4) rather than two (2) CD/discs (one of which was a BD) then yes it was not a 100% test of the original "Rope premise." If I had chosen only the original and first remaster I submit that it would have been.

In any case it's been fodder for great discussion (and then some), and as Heeman pointed out to me, the only time where all of ten of us managed to be in the HT at the same time!!!

Jeff

Ah, I forgot that there was a statement about remastering as well... I stand corrected!

 

[Yesfan70]

Aren't those discs cut from the same remaster cloth? I'd imagine the CD version is just scaled down to 16 bits for CD playback. Besides that, they should be identical sonically if they used the same master tapes for both.

This conversation seems focused on remastered tracks but I gathered the point of the OP to be that all modern recordings lack dynamics. How can we know what material was available to the engineer? Or the quality of the material? Or the tools? Or his/her ability to use them?

I'm fascinated not only by the topic, but by the audiophile's need to declare that recording A is superior or inferior to recording B despite, lack of agreement among people who hear them in real world environments.

From my perspective there are definitely some bad and over compressed recordings, both originals and remasters. That doesn't mean that all modern recordings are bad and all modern remasters are worse than their original release.

I merely inquiring about the CD that comes with the Bluray Edition of Moving Pictures. I'm under the impression, those two discs are derived from the same master tapes, so they should sonically be identical. The only difference, would be Bluray's higher bit resolution. Some of the results showed that CD sounding 'better' than the Bluray mix and that's where I see the confusion (but Pauly touched upon that one).

 

[Botch]

Here's an excellent explanation of dynamic range and the "Loudness Wars":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

And here's the Matt Mayfield video called out in the article; this explains it very well:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ[/youtube]

 

[Batman]

What computer software can be used to illustrate dynamic range in realtime for any CD at any time? I would guess that a program that maps it out similar to that video wouldn't be hard to find if you knew where to look...Forgive my ignorance, but this is the first time I've really cared enough to partake in discussions of the science of recording technology on the forum. Although I can perceive the variations within the music when I listen, this past weekend has given me more confidence to understand what I'm hearing and perhaps soon begin to put it into words when someone asks me what I hear.

 

[Batman]

I would also imagine that having access to such software would assist me in determining what cds out of my own library would be deemed a "quality" recordings regardless of how much I like the CD on a personal level...

 

[Zing]

What computer software can be used to illustrate dynamic range in realtime for any CD at any time?

There are several. A few that come to mind are:
WaveLab
Audacity
Soundforge

Hell - there's probably an app for that.

 

[Yesfan70]

Don't know about the others listed, but I know Audacity is free.

 

[Towen7]

:doh: Damit! Now all I can think about when listening to music is "dynamic impact".

Right now I'm listening to a disc for the first time and I find myself focusing not on the vocals, or the arrangement, or the instruments...

 

[Yesfan70]

....Right now I'm listening to a disc for the first time and I find myself focusing not on the vocals, or the arrangement, or the instruments...

.....but whether it's Tom Sawyer or not?

 

[Towen7]

Actually...

I was listening to what turned out to be a very well recorded CD. Then I popped in another that was pretty lousy. There was a dramatic difference in the dynamics. Both were produced at about the same time 2006 and 2005 respectively. Both were successful on radio internationally. They weren't copies of the same track but it does bring home the point I was trying to make. You can't paint with such a broad brush to say that all modern recordings and remasters are terrible.

 

[Yesfan70]

Actually...

I was listening to what turned out to be a very well recorded CD. Then I popped in another that was pretty lousy. There was a dramatic difference in the dynamics. Both were produced at about the same time 2006 and 2005 respectively. Both were successful on radio internationally. They weren't copies of the same track but it does bring home the point I was trying to make. You can't paint with such a broad brush to say that all modern recordings and remasters are terrible.

I remember one of the CD I brought to the Atlanta GTG. It was "Golden Skans" by a band by the Klaxons. Really cool song. I thought it sounded good on my Mackies, but on the Dynaudio C-1s we demoed, they sounded like shit. I felt like I was listening to a mono recording it was compressed so bad.

On the other hand, Radiohead's In Rainbows album (a new release at the time) also sounded good on my Mackies. Totally different on the C-1s though. On them, this recording sounded stellar. I was really amazed at how big the soundstage the C-1s threw out. Both albums came out about the same time, but one obviously had a much better production than the other.