Hi Catch

I switched back to Modern Times from tuning in Amused to death, and even cold the jump in quality from my previous Modern Times setting and now is staggering. The things I did to Roger's stuff, this recording loves. The guitars on tracks 2 and 4 are really nice. I can hear the fret work much better, and everything across the board cleaned up even more. I like this tune a lot better. It's more percussive and when that low tone guitar comes in on "when the deal goes down" into it a little, well that's a slice of heaven, and the ending is fantastic.

Before I wasn't using as many tunes in the room for some other stuff I was doing but after adding them both Amused and Times have bounced to life. I wish I would have done this first time around, cause I probably would have been more bold in my stand. As it is right now, I really don't hear much in this recording I don't like. The walking bass lines are smooth, tight and engaging. Piano on "workingman's blues" is clean and well blended into the mix. The mandolin on "beyond" is present and when the guitar comes in, nice! More mood to this song over all. I'm going to put on Supernatural next.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

toledo wrote:

I have been lurking awhile to see where this discussion will lead. We are discussing the causes and symptoms of bad source material but I am left with the sad conclusion that there is a lot of good music that is being neglected due to this compression issue. I may be overstating this and perhaps this source material is cursed but also listened to .. I hope so ...

If not, what allows the material to be listened to? Michael has outlined that the variable tuning world can tune their systems to allow this music to be enjoyed.

To those not able to tune, what are the alternatives? Leave this music on the table. Petition the music industry to change its ways. Switch to vinyl.

The way I see it...you gotta play the hand you were dealt, the best way you can.

I have provided a number of ways to deal with the inherent problems in CD players and the CDs themselves. As I am fond of saying out of the box CDs on out of the box systems can often sound wretched. It is what it is. I think there must be a meeting at the river in order to deal with the perceived "bad recording" issue. The meeting at the river of course is a program for recovery using everything you can think of to improve the sound quality of the CDs. This is not really a spectator sport, though initially that's what everyone was thinking this was going to be, a really convenient way to get audiophile grade sound. Boy were they wrong. I think the good news, from what I see in the posts, is that there are not too many really compressed CDs, so things might not be as bad as all of that. At least for the issue of dynamic compression; noise and distortion in the system hurt other (measurable) sonic parameters, too. The great thing about CDs and digital playback is there's a lot of slop built in, so that even though there are a lot of losses due to noise and distortion produced by both room issues and CD player issues, there is usually enough headroom to compensate. So, for recordings that have a dynamic range of say 15 dB you won't notice much degradation if there is a system loss of 3 or 4 dB...you will still perceive 11 or 12 dB of dynamic range. Where the system starts to fail is for CDs like Modern Times where the compression is so drastic that the system is on the verge of running out of headroom, when you account for losses in the system. Could the perceived dynamic range actually be negative in some cases for Modern Times? Lol. It's getting down near that point.

Which brings us to a question: how is the dynamic range being measured for all those CDs? Is the dynamic range provided, such as 7 dbB for Modern Times, the REAL dynamic range or is it the PERCEIVED dynamic range? In other words, if the folks that measure dynamic range treat a CD would they measure a higher dynamic range than the untreated one? Just curious...

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Last night I moved to Santana Supernatural. I was almost hoping that it sounded bad, so I could at least tune it in and be able to be somewhat on the same page as people who are not able to play it on their systems successfuly. But even with the first pass it sounded great and very involved. As the night went on and the settling started to happen the instruments all started to build halos around them and the stage grew to way past the walls and flowed to behind my seat. I am in the stage and the pace and groove is moving in and out. This recording has a lot more movement than Modern Times and even though I respect "Times" front to back this recording wants to form a lot of front to back spacial effects. Brilliant Carlos! There's just enough of the old school to pull you in and the new school to keep the new world listener's attention. Perfect really for keeping one relevant.

I'm having no problem playing this at all, and a couple of times my mind drifted to the topic and it sorta cracked me up, "this is suppose to be a bad recording". No I'm thinking someone has a system problem if they can't play this. I'm not wanting to make people upset, but you really can't play this? I am certain that high end has drifted from the goal if they are not able to play this recording with tons of stage and realism.

Tunees, get this recording for me and let me know what your hearing? I want to be accurate, and I want to be fair. As I have been saying there is something going on with these systems that people are claiming to be so revealing that they are not able to play these recordings. I'm not pulling this out of my b*** and have been noticing this for some time. Compression has I'm afraid become an escape hatch for those who have made their systems too inflexible.

For example, I just walked in my room and made a tiny movement of one of the tunes and the drums fell back in the stage 2 to 3 feet and cleaned up with the tone going from skin to bottom of drum leaning toward warm round and tight. Do your systems have that flexibility? If not what are you waiting on? How can you call something bad without exploring the options? I pretty much have any stage at will, as well the detail. I've been making little tuning moves and easily can see where someone could have a cloud in their room or component that they are mistaken for the sound of compression, and that's where the problem is. These recordings with or without compression have the ability to sound much better on a system that is able to tune them in over one that has not been mated to the acoustical and vibratory codes going on. I also added a top tune and snap went the focus. This easily sounds better than any system at any show or high end store in town I have been to with any recording over the past 5 years, and you guys are calling this bad? Well it may be a recording that can be remastered to sound even better but you guys are blaming the wrong thing. I am certain of it.

I will gladly vote for more dynamics but we shouldn't be using escape hatches, not at this stage in the hobby.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

michael green wrote:

What I'm asking is what is the test itself? And who's doing the test, and on what, and with what?

I'm seeing and have seen all these results but I don't see any pictures of the labs these are done in. I probably missed that part somewhere. I'm in studios showing what we are recording while we are doing it, but that is done during the recording and goes through several stages. I hope I'm being clear, but what I want to know is where is the source (recording) coming from and who are the guys conducting the tests and with what equipment?

thanks

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Michael,
Please see the attached link to the Stereophile article & subsequent comments.
http://www.stereophile.com/content/unofficial-dynamic-range-database
DR Database is not some ultra-high-tech, super-secret operation run in a deep, nuke-proof underground bunker overseen by the dreaded maniacal Doctor Distorto……

It is an open source (as in free) plug-in program that operates on your computer.
A V simple algorithm analyzes the music files you have stored in memory. All it does is scan the album or song file for the highest (loudest) & lowest (quietest) volume present.
Then it simply divides the highest value by the lowest. The result is the average dynamic range.

The data presented on the web site is submitted from users, not guys in with phd’s in white lab coats.
It is a crowd sourced data base.
In this sense, it is a wiki of sorts for the music we, the average listener is listening to.

Now let us say I want to get a CD of ‘Tom Petty – Damn the Torpedoes’.
No big deal, I just go to my favorite purveyor, whether it be a used CD from Amazon or my local brick-&-mortar retailer, and purchase the album.
But which album?
There are multiple releases of the same album.
If I go to DR Database, I can see the data submitted by other owners of the various offerings.

See this:
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=tom+petty&album=damn+the+torpedoes

First on the list is the 2000 ‘remaster’ from Geffen records.
See this:
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/31085

The average DR for the album is 7.

Now let us look at the 1984 release of the V same album from MCA Records.
See this:
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/42717

The average DR for this album is 13.

To conduct a meaningful comparison you need to get the different CD releases of the same album and compare the effects of compression as applied to the same master.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

I listened to Supernatural tonight and have to concur with Michael that this album is eminently playable and very enjoyable. The first track is a little aggressive and I can see where some systems could have trouble with the gritty raw guitar but I think this is what Carlos was looking for. This is also evident in a couple of other tracks where the soundstage was pushed forward for a bit of in your face artistic expression.

The album has such a mixture of soundstages and instrument placement/movement from deep middle focused to wide and deep 3D. The album has great presence and drive. The bass is impactful and room shaking. Instruments are presented in their own space with nice fullness and roundness ... not flat.

I loved the one track where they laid down a solid wall of bass and percussion surrounded by vocals with Carlos playing in the background. Another track towards the end of the album where the soundstage reached deep into the room was uncanny in being able to look into the mix.

Like Michael, it' started out nice but took a few cd cycles to let system/room settle around the music and really bloom.

While I agree that I would prefer to do without compression, this album rated at DR 7 has a lot to offer. If some people are not able to play it, I would definitely look at the system as a possible cause.

I have a question on the software that computes the DR values... Does it use all the tracks on an album for the computation or does the user select a track or tracks to compute it from?

This is scaring me just a little more than a little. I've started doing my own tests, comparing the same recordings with different ratings.

Have you guys been doing listening tests with these? or are you only reading and talking?

Before I say anything I want you loudness war guys to pick out a couple recordings and give a comparison between the lower rated and a higher rated one of the same recordings. I don't want another article, I want you to do it and say the differences.

I have a sneaking suspicion but want to get some feedback first.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Not to sound dumb, just lazy. So you guys are downloading a program, then you are putting your CD into the drive on your computer and running the test right?

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Catch22 wrote:

I think simply listening to the Dire Straits link that I posted above will serve the purpose of demonstrating whether or not this is something that the listener need concern themselves with. While certainly NOT reaching the level of lifelessness that a lot of music suffers from excessive compression, it's more than enough to hear the life being sucked out past the point of being musically appealing for me. And...that's exactly what excessive compression sounds like. It fills up the middle with everything that should be creating the peaks and the dynamic drive.

I have some discs that have been extensively treated, some of which, as fate would have it, are among the most heavily compressed CDs according to dynamic compression data base. For example, Modern Times and Led Zeppelin's Mothership. I am willing to loan, on a temporarily basis, say for several days, one of these treated CDs to someone *capable of running the analysis program* - someone who will act as an independent evaluator - and obtaining the dynamic range for the treated CD, for each track, plus average and high and low values. The results must be published here on this forum. The objective of course is to see how much, if at all, the treatments affect the measured dynamic range. Anyone game? Let me know. I will ship only to US address.

I promise not to change any of the actual physical data on the CD. :-)

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

..to do this.
I can also give the treated CD's to one of my audio friends to conduct a second analysis, in order to verify the consistency of the analysis.

Do you know the catalog# of the CD's?
I will be willing to attempt to track down untreated versions of the same CD to use as a benchmark.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

I wish to be clear that I need an experienced evaluator, one that knows how to use the program that was referred to, maybe it's provided by the site that hosts the Dynamic Range Data Base, not sure. Also, I would prefer only one set of hands touching the treated CD I send to prevent any unnecessary handling and time spent. I do not wish to get involved in any open-ended process that might include someone's learning curve with respect to the dynamic range evaluation program. Hope that is not being too severe. Finally I would prefer now that I think about it someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight, you know, someone who hasn't strongly supported either side of the argument. An independent and somewhat disinterested party.

The most important of my concerns is that the person establishes somehow that he can operate the dynamic range evaluation program and obtain accurate results.

Regards,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

I think it would be beneficial to also include a listening comparison between the treated and non treated cds by someone who currently owns the untreated version and is having problems with it.

This would highlight the differences much better and the differences could be described in musical and enjoyment terms and not cold statistics.

toledo wrote:

I think it would be beneficial to also include a listening comparison between the treated and non treated cds by someone who currently owns the untreated version and is having problems with it.

This would highlight the differences much better and the differences could be described in musical and enjoyment terms and not cold statistics.

I agree.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

geoffkait wrote:

.....I would prefer now that I think about it someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight, you know, someone who hasn't strongly supported either side of the argument. An independent and somewhat disinterested party.

I understand your concern & see your point.
I therefor will retract my previous offer for the time being.

geoffkait wrote:

The most important of my concerns is that the person establishes somehow that he can operate the dynamic range evaluation program and obtain accurate results.

Regards,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

DR Database is imbedded in Foobar.

Any person running Foobar to play music files simply will need to make a lossless rip (copy) using EAC, dBpoweramp or other software that performs a verification of the ripped file, from Geoff’s treated CD.

To my understanding, this process of ripping (copying) mimics the playing of the CD, so any advantages inherent in the treated CD should be in the mirrored file copy.

Once copied, load the file in the Foobar library.
Select the album in the Foobar menu, then select Dynamic Range Meter & the program runs itself. There are no settings or variable inputs that will be changed when running the scan.

The results are displayed in text format which can then be easily shared.

It is the text file report that could, should someone wish, be 'manipulated' to present abridged data.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

Catch22 wrote:

However, if the treatment being tested effects the sound quality in some other area unrelated to dynamic range, no conclusion could be drawn from simply determining its effects on dynamic range. But, that doesn't mean the listener may not form a valid opinion that "something" sounded different...treated vs untreated. They may simply conclude that the wrong thing was being measured.

The treatments affects other measurable parameters besides dynamic range. For example, signal to noise ratio. But also subjective parameters like soundstage and transparency and "drive" and musicality. One can only hope. Lol. However, dynamic range can be easily measured plus the whole thread is focused on dynamic range and the loudness wars is focused on dynamic range. So I think we should stick to measuring dynamic range and if someone wishes to hear what the treated disc sounds like that's OK with me. I just think it would interesting to find out the dynamic range numbers in the data base are wrong, that the dynamic range numbers are measured by very imperfect method and the dynamic ranges should perhaps be twice as high. Hel-loo!

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Is the DR computation based on digital data or analog waveform. If it is in the digital domain, I suspect the treated vs non treated DR numbers will not vary much if at all. Computer CD and DVD players have no problem reading correct 0 and 1s from a source.

If the computations are based on analog waveforms, I think the DR tests will need to be done by the same person, on same equipment for treated and non treated CDs for meaningful comparison. I dont think the treated DR results can be accurately compared against the database numbers per se.

Could someone answer my questions please. Thanks

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

toledo wrote:

Is the DR computation based on digital data or analog waveform. If it is in the digital domain, I suspect the treated vs non treated DR numbers will not vary much if at all. Computer CD and DVD players have no problem reading correct 0 and 1s from a source.

If the computations are based on analog waveforms, I think the DR tests will need to be done by the same person, on same equipment for treated and non treated CDs for meaningful comparison. I dont think the treated DR results can be accurately compared against the database numbers per se.

Why would computer CD players and DVD players have no trouble reading the data on the disc properly?

I would think DR results of the treated disc would only have to be compared to the DR in the dynamic range data base. Why do you say no?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

geoffkait wrote:

Why would computer CD players and DVD players have no trouble reading the data on the disc properly?

I would think DR results of the treated disc would only have to be compared to the DR in the dynamic range data base. Why do you say no?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Redbook CDs use CIRC encoding which includes a one byte parity for every 3 bytes of data. While not absolutely error proof, it will deliver pretty good error correction when reading the CD. A computer does not have to deal with timing issues, it's goal is the retrieval of the data. Given that after the cd rip, a verification pass is done, your are guaranteed that the stored sampled integers will match those on the CD.

I make the supposition that the sampled integers after successfully being read from both the treated and untreated CDs and stored to ripped files will match up identically and the files should match up byte for byte.

If the DR computation is made from the integer samples stored in the ripped files, the DR should not change when computed from treated disk or untreated disk.

Now, if the DR computations are made from an analog waveform constructed from the digital integer samples, I see potential for variance in the DA process and hence it is best to compare the analog DR for treated and untreated CDS created from the same machine.

The more I think about this, why would the DR be done in the analog domain when it is much easier to scan the sampled integers and derive a result. This is how I would do it and I am in the software biz.

toledo wrote:

geoffkait wrote:

Why would computer CD players and DVD players have no trouble reading the data on the disc properly?

I would think DR results of the treated disc would only have to be compared to the DR in the dynamic range data base. Why do you say no?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Redbook CDs use CIRC encoding which includes a one byte parity for every 3 bytes of data. While not absolutely error proof, it will deliver pretty good error correction when reading the CD. A computer does not have to deal with timing issues, it's goal is the retrieval of the data. Given that after the cd rip, a verification pass is done, your are guaranteed that the stored sampled integers will match those on the CD.

Whether the cd is treated or not, I make the supposition that the sampled integers after successfully being read from the CDs and stored to ripped files will match up identically. Both files should match up byte for byte.

If the DR computation is made from the integer samples stored in the ripped files, the DR should not change when computed from treated disk or untreated disk.

Now, if the DR computations are made from an analog waveform constructed from the digital integer samples, I see potential for variance in the DA process and hence it is best to compare the analog DR for treated and untreated CDS created from the same machine.

The more I think about this, why would the DR be done in the analog domain when it is much easier to scan the sampled integers and derive a result. This is how I would do it and I am in the software biz.

I hear what you're saying but I am 99 44/100 sure that treated CDs make better (more accurate) ripped files than untreated ones. Thus, the DR of the file ripped from a treated CD should be higher than the DR of the untreated CD. I'm not sure but I think you would have trouble with that statement. I'm fairly confident you cannot be a fan of coloring CDs or the Intelligent Chip AND believe in the infallibility of error correction codes simultaneously. However, there is still a chance I'm misunderstanding what you mean.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

wkhanna wrote:

geoffkait wrote:

.....I would prefer now that I think about it someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight, you know, someone who hasn't strongly supported either side of the argument. An independent and somewhat disinterested party.

I understand your concern & see your point.
I therefor will retract my previous offer for the time being.

geoffkait wrote:

The most important of my concerns is that the person establishes somehow that he can operate the dynamic range evaluation program and obtain accurate results.

Regards,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

DR Database is imbedded in Foobar.

Any person running Foobar to play music files simply will need to make a lossless rip (copy) using EAC, dBpoweramp or other software that performs a verification of the ripped file, from Geoff’s treated CD.

To my understanding, this process of ripping (copying) mimics the playing of the CD, so any advantages inherent in the treated CD should be in the mirrored file copy.

Once copied, load the file in the Foobar library.
Select the album in the Foobar menu, then select Dynamic Range Meter & the program runs itself. There are no settings or variable inputs that will be changed when running the scan.

The results are displayed in text format which can then be easily shared.

It is the text file report that could, should someone wish, be 'manipulated' to present abridged data.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

Bill, you convinced me to change my mind. I actually don't mind that you are perhaps on the Naysayer side so much after all. I mean, who isn't these days? So, are you still game?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

Unlike Michael Green I do NOT set up my system totally differently for every new album that comes down the pike... I kind of thought a "reference" system means NO MORE FUSSING---just play the damn thing.

And the "lack of life", "lack of palpable realism" "They are not HERE and you are not THERE" and overall mind numbing DULLNESS of Modern Times by Dylan is typical of the boring over processed dull "wall paper" of sound which litters the recording market place nowadays.

I don't know about anybody else but I rather TREASURE my system for sounding PERFECT with tens of thousands of well recorded OLD recordings which were made by grown men who knew their stuff. I TREASURE the ability to unmask TERRIBLE recordings when I run into them once in a while. (Mostly NEW or Re-Mastered Junk).

In 2009 for instance I fell prey to the Re-Mastered BEATLES BOX SET only to recoil in horror at the total MID-FI tonality and over compression of the whole project. My God, Paul's bass is so damn loud on Sgt. Pepper that it almost blew out my bank of subs when I left the volume knob in the normal position. A quick comparison with the Capitol CD from over ten years earlier revealed just how much damage the boys at Abbey Road had done to the entire catalog.

And still the praise from the world of Mid-Fi kept pouring in. On a Bose table Radio no doubt the ability to crank the volume ever higher was a real godsend...

And Michael Green "tuned" his system and walls and room and ears and haircut to accommodate THAT abortion of a Re-Mastered to death crap. And Michael pronounced it GOOD.

Well, not me. Not so much. More like disgusting.

Here are examples of the three Dire Strait – Brothers in Arms files that I have in my library:

--SACD RIPPED TO FLAC--
FOOBAR2000 1.1.6 / DYNAMIC RANGE METER 1.1.1
LOG DATE: 2014-07-10 18:46:18

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Dire Straits / Brothers In Arms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR9 -3.70 dB -15.06 dB 5:11 01-So Far Away
DR8 -4.54 dB -15.17 dB 8:26 02-Money For Nothing
DR6 -5.21 dB -13.73 dB 4:13 03-Walk Of Life
DR8 -4.49 dB -15.36 dB 6:34 04-Your Latest Trick
DR11 -5.61 dB -18.96 dB 8:31 05-Why Worry?
DR10 -5.20 dB -18.21 dB 6:57 06-Ride Across The River
DR8 -4.30 dB -16.75 dB 4:41 07-The Man's Too Strong
DR9 -4.34 dB -15.42 dB 3:40 08-One World
DR8 -5.38 dB -16.57 dB 6:58 09-Brothers In Arms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks: 9
Official DR value: DR9

Samplerate: 88200 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 2650 kbps
Codec: FLAC

--NEXT IS WARNER BROS 1-25264
ORIGINAL QUIEX PROMO EDITION
24-BIT / 96 KHZ I RIPPED FROM VINYL--

foobar2000 1.1.6 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2014-07-10 19:06:28

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Dire Straits / Brothers In Arms (Vinyl)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR17 -0.30 dB -19.67 dB 4:02 01-So Far Away
DR17 -0.30 dB -21.12 dB 7:03 02-Money For Nothing
DR13 -1.50 dB -17.42 dB 4:11 03-Walk of Life
DR14 -3.00 dB -20.01 dB 4:41 04-Your Latest Trick
DR12 -7.00 dB -22.72 dB 5:25 05-Why Worry
DR16 -1.00 dB -20.57 dB 6:58 06-Ride Across the River
DR14 -0.70 dB -20.14 dB 4:40 07-The Man's Too Strong
DR16 -1.00 dB -18.92 dB 3:40 08-One World
DR14 -4.93 dB -22.66 dB 6:56 09-Brothers In Arms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks: 9
Official DR value: DR15

Samplerate: 96000 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 2413 kbps
Codec: FLAC

--THIS IS ANOTHER RIP MADE FROM ANOTHER VINYL ALBUM--

foobar2000 1.1.6 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2014-07-10 19:08:53

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Dire Straits / Brothers In Arms (RL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR16 -0.55 dB -19.19 dB 4:02 01-So Far Away
DR16 -0.29 dB -19.73 dB 7:03 02-Money For Nothing
DR13 -3.40 dB -19.37 dB 4:10 03-Walk Of Life
DR13 -6.37 dB -22.77 dB 4:49 04-Your Latest Trick
DR12 -9.62 dB -24.50 dB 5:25 05-Why Worry
DR16 0.00 dB -19.78 dB 6:59 06-Ride Across The River
DR14 -1.22 dB -19.85 dB 4:41 07-The Man's Too Strong
DR16 -0.11 dB -18.83 dB 3:40 08-One World
DR12 -4.57 dB -21.37 dB 7:00 09-Brothers In Arms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks: 9
Official DR value: DR14

Samplerate: 96000 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 2562 kbps
Codec: FLAC

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

As a generalization it seems that quality recording engineers USED to pay attention to HOW things went to tape.

But those days are a thing of the past. Without quality TALENT running the boards and Re-Mastering efforts the result of MANY CD transfers is a total disaster. And SACD DOES NOTHING TO SOLVE THE LACK OF ENGINEERING TALENT.

I mean really... Some of my cherished early Frank Sinatra recordings back before TAPE have more life and realism to them then the flattened soul less wall paper sounds that come from major lables nowadays.

And as for formats---CD can certainly sound wonderful when proper care is followed in the recording process. On the other hand I was one of the first to argue that we were being lied to about how "great" CDs sounded and how horrible vinyl sounded.

The very real failure of CD to retrieve low level detail is well documented and here the Vinyl guys are quite correct in what they are hearing. But a well recorded CD is not awful. AND it is usually pretty quiet compared to vinyl.

SACD runs the risk of being totally uninteresting as long as the number of releases done with great care is miniscule. Just because it and 96/24 are a better technology ON PAPER will mean little if the audio is not recorded by someone with a great talent and ear for the job...

I will migrate to high definition digital myself the minute someone offers an astonishingly huge library of well vetted quality digital downloads on the net. I will gladly pay to access such a library. In SACD or 24/96. IF there is enough stuff to get excited about.

Meanwhile I sit here perfecting CD playback and cartridge fiddling for best practices...

Gotta go where the number of high quality releases are and not live in a dream that is not here yet...

wkhanna wrote:

Here are examples of the three Dire Strait – Brothers in Arms files that I have in my library:

--SACD RIPPED TO FLAC--
FOOBAR2000 1.1.6 / DYNAMIC RANGE METER 1.1.1
LOG DATE: 2014-07-10 18:46:18

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Dire Straits / Brothers In Arms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR9 -3.70 dB -15.06 dB 5:11 01-So Far Away
DR8 -4.54 dB -15.17 dB 8:26 02-Money For Nothing
DR6 -5.21 dB -13.73 dB 4:13 03-Walk Of Life
DR8 -4.49 dB -15.36 dB 6:34 04-Your Latest Trick
DR11 -5.61 dB -18.96 dB 8:31 05-Why Worry?
DR10 -5.20 dB -18.21 dB 6:57 06-Ride Across The River
DR8 -4.30 dB -16.75 dB 4:41 07-The Man's Too Strong
DR9 -4.34 dB -15.42 dB 3:40 08-One World
DR8 -5.38 dB -16.57 dB 6:58 09-Brothers In Arms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks: 9
Official DR value: DR9

Samplerate: 88200 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 2650 kbps
Codec: FLAC

--NEXT IS WARNER BROS 1-25264
ORIGINAL QUIEX PROMO EDITION
24-BIT / 96 KHZ I RIPPED FROM VINYL--

foobar2000 1.1.6 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2014-07-10 19:06:28

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Dire Straits / Brothers In Arms (Vinyl)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR17 -0.30 dB -19.67 dB 4:02 01-So Far Away
DR17 -0.30 dB -21.12 dB 7:03 02-Money For Nothing
DR13 -1.50 dB -17.42 dB 4:11 03-Walk of Life
DR14 -3.00 dB -20.01 dB 4:41 04-Your Latest Trick
DR12 -7.00 dB -22.72 dB 5:25 05-Why Worry
DR16 -1.00 dB -20.57 dB 6:58 06-Ride Across the River
DR14 -0.70 dB -20.14 dB 4:40 07-The Man's Too Strong
DR16 -1.00 dB -18.92 dB 3:40 08-One World
DR14 -4.93 dB -22.66 dB 6:56 09-Brothers In Arms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks: 9
Official DR value: DR15

Samplerate: 96000 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 2413 kbps
Codec: FLAC

--THIS IS ANOTHER RIP MADE FROM ANOTHER VINYL ALBUM--

foobar2000 1.1.6 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2014-07-10 19:08:53

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Dire Straits / Brothers In Arms (RL)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR16 -0.55 dB -19.19 dB 4:02 01-So Far Away
DR16 -0.29 dB -19.73 dB 7:03 02-Money For Nothing
DR13 -3.40 dB -19.37 dB 4:10 03-Walk Of Life
DR13 -6.37 dB -22.77 dB 4:49 04-Your Latest Trick
DR12 -9.62 dB -24.50 dB 5:25 05-Why Worry
DR16 0.00 dB -19.78 dB 6:59 06-Ride Across The River
DR14 -1.22 dB -19.85 dB 4:41 07-The Man's Too Strong
DR16 -0.11 dB -18.83 dB 3:40 08-One World
DR12 -4.57 dB -21.37 dB 7:00 09-Brothers In Arms
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks: 9
Official DR value: DR14

Samplerate: 96000 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 24
Bitrate: 2562 kbps
Codec: FLAC

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

Impressive DR of Brothers in Arms. One wonders if it still sounds as hard, metallic, digital and sterile as I remember it.

So, did you see my question regarding Modern Times? It's OK if you are ignoring it.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

There is a lot going in this thread......

Allow me to hit some of the main points.

Geoff:
I composed my DR file reports & posted before I saw your counter-offer.
Not ignoring you.

Catch22:
SACD has the potential to offer better quality, but it always comes down to the intent & ability of who is producing the product. (Ripping SACD to FLAC is troublesome due to embedded copy protection.
But there are ways around it that can addressed latter).

This Brings me to the Good Dr's comments, which hit the proverbial nail on the head, IMHO.

Back to Geaoff:
I would be honored to take sacred temporary custody of one of your treated discs.

My leisure time is finite at the moment.
I will respond in greater detail at first opportunity.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

The last few days I've been following the data referencing, playing a lot of different pieces. It's meant me going out and buying some CD's but that's ok, and I've also talked with a recording buddy of mine.

After listening and looking into these home brew tests and talking to my pal, I would recommend you guys do a little more listening and try to get your systems to the place where they can play anything. Your cheating yourselves out of a lot of music is our take.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

geoffkait wrote:

Bill, you convinced me to change my mind. I actually don't mind that you are perhaps on the Naysayer side so much after all. I mean, who isn't these days? So, are you still game?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

Hi, Geoff.

It never was my intent to change your mind.
And actually, I am not necessarily a Nysayer.
I just do not like paying for, or playing, music that has been smashed to smithereens for no good reason.

But I must state my predictions so you clearly understand my bias and intent.

First, regarding your treatments.

I have no idea whether they work or not.
If they do, and I am able to clearly discriminate & describe the differences between your disc & an untreated one from the same stamper (which I will gladly purchase myself) I will be V pleased for us both.
BTW, I will conduct volume matching with my decibel meter during the ‘listening’ part of the evaluation.

Second, measuring this difference, should I be able to detect one, is a totally new ballgame.

Again, regarding the Dynamic Range Meter software…..it is only measuring max & min signal attenuation in the digital data obtained from the CD.

For this reason I do not expect to find any difference in the DR values of the two discs regardless if they ‘sound’ different.
However, if your treatment somehow allows data on the disc to pass that otherwise was not previously being transferred during the reading process & actually provides an increase in the overall dynamic range……well then……..we might V well have some objective empirical evidence that infers your methods effective at freeing more ‘music’ from the format.

Third, keep in mind, also, that I do not own a CD payer.

All my listening will be from what I believe to be are for all practical purpose ‘bit perfect’ (I would prefer not to get into a discussion of exactly what is , and is not, ‘bit perfect’ here) digital copies ripped to my NAS hard drive.

Are we all on the same page?

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

wkhanna wrote:

geoffkait wrote:

Bill, you convinced me to change my mind. I actually don't mind that you are perhaps on the Naysayer side so much after all. I mean, who isn't these days? So, are you still game?

Geoff Kait
Machina Dramatica

Hi, Geoff.

It never was my intent to change your mind.
And actually, I am not necessarily a Nysayer.
I just do not like paying for, or playing, music that has been smashed to smithereens for no good reason.

But I must state my predictions so you clearly understand my bias and intent.

First, regarding your treatments.

I have no idea whether they work or not.
If they do, and I am able to clearly discriminate & describe the differences between your disc & an untreated one from the same stamper (which I will gladly purchase myself) I will be V pleased for us both.
BTW, I will conduct volume matching with my decibel meter during the ‘listening’ part of the evaluation.

Second, measuring this difference, should I be able to detect one, is a totally new ballgame.

Again, regarding the Dynamic Range Meter software…..it is only measuring max & min signal attenuation in the digital data obtained from the CD.

For this reason I do not expect to find any difference in the DR values of the two discs regardless if they ‘sound’ different.
However, if your treatment somehow allows data on the disc to pass that otherwise was not previously being transferred during the reading process & actually provides an increase in the overall dynamic range……well then……..we might V well have some objective empirical evidence that infers your methods effective at freeing more ‘music’ from the format.

Third, keep in mind, also, that I do not own a CD payer.

All my listening will be from what I believe to be are for all practical purpose ‘bit perfect’ (I would prefer not to get into a discussion of exactly what is , and is not, ‘bit perfect’ here) digital copies ripped to my NAS hard drive.

Are we all on the same page?

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

Sounds good to me. You can email me your shipping address via my website or PM via this forum. Let's rock! Let's see if I can slip one past the goalie.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

michael green wrote:

The last few days I've been following the data referencing, playing a lot of different pieces. It's meant me going out and buying some CD's but that's ok, and I've also talked with a recording buddy of mine.

After listening and looking into these home brew tests and talking to my pal, I would recommend you guys do a little more listening and try to get your systems to the place where they can play anything. Your cheating yourselves out of a lot of music is our take.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Been there. Done that.

All we are saying Michael is that when the recording are seriously "out-of-whack" that they should SOUND seriously "out-of-whack." Way too much bass is BAD. Over compression is BAD. Dull lifeless transfers of master recording to digital is BAD.

Hearing it as such simply means your set is correct and does NOT have to be adjusted.

It also means that any trend to produce crappy sounding audio should be resisted. Because you can HEAR the resulting mess.

Unlike YOU I do not believe "it's all GOOD."

And I hate this trend that "crap is GOOD, you are just not HEARING it right."

geoffkait wrote:

Sounds good to me. You can email me your shipping address via my website or PM via this forum. Let's rock! Let's see if I can slip one past the goalie.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Funny, I have never been able to find a PM app here.
I will contact you via your website.

I have not had this much fun without a scotch in my hand for a while!

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

We, doctor fine?

Who's the we we're talking about here?

Honestly, I don't think you have been there, or done that.

"We" have no idea about your referencing. We see you talk, but where is this system that is able to be a reference? Again I don't mean to be mean to anyone here, but I see more people being able to play this music just fine and a few people who can't. The people who can't so far (the ones I can see pics of their systems) I can see why they can't.

If I saw your system I could tell you why it's playing or not playing something, but if someone can than you guys need to think about why you can't, that's all "we're" saying. This isn't a one way street guys.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Bill

After your done with the CD I would like to take a listen if it is ok with Geoff. I could then ship it to Toledo or who ever is next.

thanks

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Michael, don't take this the wrong way, but I would prefer not to turn this into an open ended dog and pony show, so to speak. I am sending the CD to Bill for the sole purpose of his evaluation, both measurements and listening. In this respect he is acting as a third party independent tester. When his evaluation is complete and I have the CD back in my possession perhaps we can talk about some other fun thing to do with treated CDs.

Cheers,

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Geoff’s treated disc should be on its way to me.
I have, just today also placed an order for a brand new copy of Modern Times.
The gears are in motion for this evaluation.
I will soon be posting a detailed description of the testing method Geoff & I have both agreed to.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

Geoff

"Michael, don't take this the wrong way, but I would prefer not to turn this into an open ended dog and pony show, so to speak. I am sending the CD to Bill for the sole purpose of his evaluation, both measurements and listening. In this respect he is acting as a third party independent tester. When his evaluation is complete and I have the CD back in my possession perhaps we can talk about some other fun thing to do with treated CDs. "

This is only a dog and pony show if you make it into one. I would simply like to get a listen to the things you are talking about your way.

What Bill is doing is fine if others are doing what he is, but don't you think having me listen or others is a good way to make the point? If you convince all levels and ways of listening then I would think this would gain you a lot more ground. Up to you, but if your wanting a bigger crowd this would be a good opportunity I would think. But I can also do my own thing if your not willing.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

PS: I send my tunes to thousands for review in their homes and studios, everytime looking forward to their feedback. If your in the music biz, that's what you do.

wkhanna wrote:

I will soon be posting a detailed description of the testing method Geoff & I have both agreed to.

Allow me to rephrase......

I will soon be posting a detailed description of the testing method I have myself developed, which Geoff has willingly agreed to.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

I wish to make it perfectly clear......

Geoff has UNCONDITIONALLY provided me his CD for evaluation in any manner I chose.

Period.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

Hi Guys

As I have been following this I would like to share why I have the types of reactions and concerns I do.

When you guys start talking about these different tests of course like anyone else it gets me interested because this is what I do for a living from my listening point of view. But when I start to hear how ramdom these tests are conducted on the compression thing and now on this cryo/not cryo testing it makes me not very confident in the findings. Please understand I'm not slaming on you but I hope you guys can see where we are coming from here.
____________________________________
michael green wrote:

Hi Geoff

I didn't know that most of the cables were cryo treated. I've been using my own. Sometimes I will test others but they usually sound bright or strangly dull. A lot of cables to us sound artifical. I was asked to ask you what temp to set my cryo treatment at? I'm going to have a couple of CD's done.

Geoff's response

I think the labs have a pretty good idea how to set up the computer in terms of ramp down time, dwell time and ramp up time. There is also the consideration that you probably do not wish to expose anything to the pure nitrogen liquid since that is much colder than the vapor. Almost all cryo labs use these large cryo coolers that look like big ice chests that are constructed so that the items being cryo'd are only exposed to the nitrogen vapor. Jena Labs the ex NASA dude like yours truly does dip the item being cryo'd into the pure liquid nitrogen, which is somewhat colder than the vapor, for a short unspecified period of time at the end of the dwell cycle. Whether this step is good, bad or indifferent, is a little debatable, due to the potential for hurting the material, but I think the point is that you certainly don't want to dip whatever you are cryoing into the pure liquid nitrogen for very long, IF AT ALL. If I recall correctly the pure liquid nitrogen temperature is about -325 F and the nitrogen vapor temperature is -300 F. If you are going to do the cryo yourself I would use vapor only, at -300F but I think the critical part of the whole process is controlling the temperature, lowering the temperature VERY SLOWLY from room temperature to -300 F then keeping the temperature constant for say 12 hours or so then returning the thing to room temperature VERY SLOWLY. For those reasons cryo labs are highly recommended.

The reason why I say dipping the item being cryo'd into liquid nitrogen during the final stage of the dwell cycle (or at any time) is debatable, by the way, is because if anyone is going to nitpick about a temperature difference of 25 degrees, then you have to ask yourself IF the lowest possible temperature really is SUPERIOR and would be SUPERIOR FOR THE SOUND why hasn't some enterprising soul developed a cryo lab based on liquid hydrogen which in its liquid state is - 429 F ? Avoiding thermal shock, albeit temporary, which is the thing that makes the sound pinched, weird, unmusical, etc. Is one reason I use the freezer section of the fridge for home cryo. And yes I know the temperature in the freezer is not really cryo temperature so any audiophiles out there listening to this please don't send me any long explanations about how a home freezer isn't cold enough and is not permanent. Lol

I have my own cables cryo'd at Cryopro in Missouri. I also have all of my cables burned in on the AudioDharma Cable Cooker at Audio Excellence, I figure better safe than sorry.

________________________________________________

michael green wrote:

Hi Geoff

Is that who did the CD your sending to Bill?

Geoff

Actually, the CD I'm sending to Bill was not cryo'd, only frozen overnight in my trusty home freezer. The working man's cryo. I would not have been able to evaluate Modern Times and post results in a timely fashion had I sent the CD off to Cryopro since there is usually a week or more turnaround from the time I ship to the time I receive. Cryopro does the run on Fridays and ships on Tuesdays. Then there's another week delay once I get it back until the thermal shock wears off and won't color the sound so that would have meant a two week delay, minimum.
______________________________________

Geoff also said when talking about doing this test.

"I have some discs that have been extensively treated"
_________________________________________

I hope you guys can understand why I say hmmmm on here. "I have extensively treated" then "Actually, the CD I'm sending to Bill was not cryo'd, only frozen overnight in my trusty home freezer."

This is a far cry from having something professionally done at a particular temp for testing.

When someone comes here and reads all these ratings looking so offical and then finding out that this is a random style testing on tons of different computers with no standards set, and on the other test a lot of talking about how to do cryo correctly, but we're not doing that for this test, it looks a little Radio Shack-ish for guys claiming to be so high end. I know that the audiophile thing is to get all technical and offical sounding but if you are not going to follow through with the same type of detail to the actual testing it's not really all that convincing to those of us who are in the middle of strict guidelines and always being put on the proof chopping block.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

Michael, don't be such a worry wart. The CD I'm sending for dynamic range testing has been extensively treated, as I said. The freezing is just one part of the treatment. I counted off the top of my head yesterday 10 treatments that were applied to the Modern Times CD. Each treatment addresses a problem with digital playback. As I said previously the home freezer is an excellent substitute for real cryo. Yes, I have heard all the arguments as to why home freezing can't possibly work, disobeys the Laws of Physics, is not permanent, is not "professional," is not cold enough, etc. One perfectly good reason for substituting home freezing for cryo is the minimum two week turnaround from the cryo lab. I say let's get the show on the road! NOTE: I can certainly understand your apparent frustration in this matter and you'll pardon me for saying so but you're exhibiting all the characteristics of the not invented here syndrome. I'm sure you have developed techniques of your own that work well for you in their own way.

Geoff Kait,
Machina Dynamica

Hi Geoff

Why would I be worried, I just wanted to test it, and be accurate. Trust me, I have no desire to be cryo king, my plate is full.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

michael green wrote:

Hi Geoff

Why would I be worried, I just wanted to test it, and be accurate. Trust me, I have no desire to be cryo king, my plate is full.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

You certainly don't need me to test it. What are you talking about? I don't know why you would be worried, either. Furthermore, my sending you the treated CD would not assist you one iota in evaluating cryo, assuming for a moment the CD HAD BEEN cryo'd. Since the Test CD is treated every which way but loose you would certainly be unable to distinguish the effects on the sound of cryo from the other 9 or so treatments. Hel-loo! In fact, Michael, you would be probably be unable to correlate the effects on the sound with any one of the 10 or so treatments. So much for the cryo test, at least with this particular CD, your interest in accuracy notwithstanding.

Geoff Kait
Machina Dynamica

Allow me to summarize the evolution of the thread as it pertains to the testing.

Initially, the question was asked whether a ‘treated’ disc could produce a higher DR value than an ‘unadulterated’ one.
Geoff offered to submit a ‘treated’ disc for third party evaluation in order to provide an answer.
He then offered to allow me to conduct the test.

The software being used for the test is a global application.
This means essentially anyone, anywhere, ruining the same software will generate the V same data on any computer.

Once the discs (the ‘treated’ one & the ‘Standard’) are ripped to a digital file, I will have another person, my friend Dan, run the same DR Meter test of both ripped files on his system to validate his results match mine.
These results will serve as the dynamic range (objective) testing.

For the subjective testing, both ripped files will be double blind tested on my system & Dan’s.
Our individual reports along with detailed descriptions & photos of our systems will then be posted.

This test is intended only as an amateur evaluation.
We have no pretense towards presenting these findings as empirical or scientific evidence.
We will describe to the best of our ability exactly what we both hear.
We make no defense against claims of group influence, expectation bias or any other accusations of fault associated with our planned test procedure.

Should anyone wish to argue our findings based on this disclosure, fine.
Have at it.
Respectfully & with sincere honesty, we could care less.

Our only interest is in what we hear & how our systems sound to us.

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –

toledo wrote:

I have a question on the software that computes the DR values... Does it use all the tracks on an album for the computation or does the user select a track or tracks to compute it from?

Hi toledo.

The answer to your question is both.

Here is the result of the album I am listening to at this V moment:

foobar2000 1.1.6 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2014-07-13 18:40:32

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Miles Davis / Someday My Prince Will Come
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR11 -0.04 dB -13.90 dB 9:06 01-Someday My Prince Will Come
DR12 -0.79 dB -16.12 dB 5:17 02-Old Folks
DR11 -0.02 dB -14.06 dB 8:33 03-Pfrancing
DR11 -0.31 dB -15.75 dB 4:51 04-Drad Dog
DR11 -0.02 dB -12.74 dB 9:36 05-Teo
DR13 -0.38 dB -16.68 dB 4:55 06-I Thought About You
DR10 -0.02 dB -12.43 dB 7:08 07-Blues No.2
DR12 -0.02 dB -15.44 dB 5:35 08-Someday My Prince Will Come (Alternate Take)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks: 8
Official DR value: DR11

Samplerate: 44100 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 16
Bitrate: 861 kbps
Codec: FLAC

Note that the stated "Official DR value: DR11" above refers to the average dynamic range for the entire album of the FLAC file in my computer.

[edit: The term "Offical" is a bit of a misnomer.
It refers only to the value produced by the individual file(s) that was scanned.]

Bill - on the Hill
Practicing Curmudgeon & Audio Snob
- just an “ON” switch, Please –