member

Makes one wonder why anyone would compress music at all.

mg

Recordings started to be compressed because of the HiFi market. When HiFi speakers started to be made they would blow when used with the full dynamics. In the early days and even now the speakers designed for the control room are far different from the ones for the home consummer. There's basically 3 steps that take place. First the control room. Next the music goes to the mastering. And then it heads out to the end user. Recordings pre-mastering are made at a much higher dynamic range that is closer to the live room. If you set this up in the typical home it would pretty much blast you out. The volume is recorded most of the time in real space and volume. Meaning to playback all the info you would need a space the same size and a system that played at one constant level. In order to make the music usable it needs to be made with the ends clipped and the middle raised to work it's best with whatever the playback is.

You have to keep in mind how the music industry works to get a picture of this in your head. Not that it's perfect by any means but CD's for example have many uses. You use them in a car, in a home, on the radio, portable listening, clubs and I'm probably missing some. Here's the thing. An engineer sitting in that mastering room told to make an end product for radio in the 80's is going to master the products far more compressed than the guy listening to his HiFi system. Let me give you Detroit for example. My rooms there were used for referencing rooms. We started in the main room, the sound went to the control room, and then a mastering room. After this though literally we would drive around in our sound car, take the music over to my place, take it to other guys places like radio stations or portable CD players stores or a host of other playbacks before making the final choices. Every one of those conditions sounded different, even more so the less compression used. Could you imagine listening to a non-compressed piece of music in a portable CDP? It would be full blown distortion. Or a high end home system the cones would be laying on the floor or like with Quads, they would catch on fire.

The market place though for many years tried to sell the same product to all the different formats for all the different end users. Remember this is still a relatively new science mated with a marketing plan to reach as many people with the fewest skus possible. With all this technology and all the demands for these recordings on all these different formats we have move far away from a one size fits all music world. It's not that the engineering world is trying to poison you. It's that we listen to music through so many different ways.

My guess is, that in the end, files will be released where you can EQ them to your set of conditions. Your systems will be linked but you will choose between car, home, headphone and all the different playback situations. Engineers are now working on this but there's a learning curve and implimenting personal DSP is a little tougher than we think, at least for the purist.

So what I preach is this. Don't get hung up on all this dynamic range stuff cause before you turn around it will be a whole new world where you have much more control over the music you play and your playback systems. Try not to blame the mass market, learn how recordings and playback works and then it will make a lot more sense, and you will also know how to deal with it.

I should probably add this as well. It's not just the CD's that are compressed but also your amps and speakers.

One more thing, everytime your using your volume control your using a form of compression.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

The Music Loudness Alliance is a group of audio technical and production experts led by Florian Camerer and consists of Florian and audio engineers Eelco Grimm, Kevin Gross, Bob Katz, Bob Ludwig, Ian Shepherd and Thomas Lund. Our mission is to inform and educate the audio community about Loudness Normalization and suggestions on how to implement it on various platforms, such as computer music players and standalone audio players. Please take a look at our white paper Loudness Normalization: The Future of File-Based Playback. Download the most recent revision of our paper from here.

http://www.music-loudness.com/index.php/white-papers/71-loudness-normalization

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

http://www.music-loudness.com/index.php/weblinks

"Loudness War: Peace is Almost Here!
| Print |

Step into my Time Machine. This 20 minute video takes you from the quiet beginnings of the Compact Disc in 1980 through to Loudness Peace by the year 2020. It includes demonstrations of the loudest master I have ever had to make and paints a picture of what the art of audio mastering will be like once the loudness war has been settled."

http://www.digido.com/articles-and-demos12/15-other-audio-articles/33-loudness-war.html

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

I'm re-posting this thread as a reference to how audiophiles look at soundstage many times in defense of them not able to reveal the whole space. No offence to anyone but take a look.

http://www.stereophile.com/content/does-your-system-play-hall

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

compression: reduction in volume

What, you mean turning down the gain? Yes in a way, but what I'm talking about here is the compression of the soundstage.

http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t268-the-audio-code

http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/t184-is-your-room-playing-your-speakers-or-are-your-speakers-playing-the-room

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

Do you know what dynamic range is, really? It's far more than some audiophile going to a random download data base and doing a copy past on a audiophile forum.

Did you know these data bases have no qualifications or standards on testing?

Here take a look

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/add

Above shows you how easy it is to post info on the most widely used list.

All over this forum you will find members posting these random, non-conclusive, amateur findings. Not one of these people doing the posting offers any soundstage playback results. They simply copy and paste leaving out the most important part of the entire hobby, the reason anyone who listens, listens.

The members here who have raised the DR bannor, have not once brought into view soundstage compression. I would imagine them sitting there with a 10x4x7 stage (typical high end soundstage), hear something weird and start to blame it on DR. How far off the end of the batt is this?

Let me give you again a look at a soundstage.

reserved for OP

michael green
MGA/RoomTune

I saw what I call the general return to normal taking place about 2009, but dynamics never really went away, just harder to find at times. Troubling for many was when the experimenting was going on, high end audio also took a strange turn.

In the mid 80's the discrete movement began among high enders. You've read me talk about this many times but sometimes one has to wonder if it ever sank in, or if high end audio committed themselves so enthusiastically there was no way to backout of the room gracefully. The latter was certainly true and still discrete audio guys fight to the death to defend their "one sound" systems. Millions if not billions of hard earn money was thrown at systems that had no control other than a volume control. This of course never made sense, and now the tide has turned, but to what cost?

An entire generation of high end audio listeners got caught up in the faleshood of discrete koolaid. In the mid 80's the one sound discrete world came rolling on the scene with a marketing bang. Mainstream stayed with tone controlling, as well did the live, recording and mastering world, but high end audio was trying to justify the dollar nitch. The name audio purist over night went from adjustable, as in tapes and tables, to a world that the big buck audiophile marketplace totally got lost in. Keep in mind this was also the generation with the biggest differences between recording production DR's. Recordings ran the gamut with varied dynamic ranges at the same time high end audio shut the doors on playback adjustments. Worse, in an attempt of insanity, high end audio started producing extremely complicated systems sure to lock in that "one sound".

So here is the music biz with a much bigger range of dynamics to choose from, and high end audio creating a world of thousands of systems that only were able to produce one selection among the millions.

give those crazy youngsters a chance and they'll come around :)

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/07/the-loudness-wars-is-musics-noisy-arms-race-over/242293/

But will high end audio come around to a more sensible hobby? Many have. In fact the audiophile cheapskates are flooding the market, combining fantastic sounding gear as well as hosting tone control & balance. The new audiophile is thinking "environment" and how do I make my system play the music.

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

geoff said

"I know what Michael is thinking: "The data must be wrong."

mg

Michael is thinking no such thing. I think we ought to turn the subject up a few notches, with more detail to the data and specifics.

Copy & paste is not nearly enough info for any quality listener to use any more than what it is. What Mr. geoffy should be doing while listing the data is go into the production and mastering of each unit. For example, why isn't geoff giving any info on "Taylor Swift 1989 [Deluxe Edition - Mastered for iTunes] 2015 08 06 15 lossy Download".

geoff, why was the Deluxe Edition mastered for iTunes differently than the others?

Nope we need to study the whole volume issues in detail and not use this for an excuse for unsuccessful listening, which has always been my purpose here. This shouldn't be about geoff or May or anyone else trying to posture that they know more. This should be about understanding and helping those who don't.

Another example

geoff says that "DR has nothing to do with volume", when the entire music industry says the opposite. If geoff has a specific nitch he wishes to present, present away, but lets keep these topics at least above the basics.

If geoff wishes to challenge webster, wiki or the audio industry at large than he should do so. But trying to make the case that he has a higher intellect by doing a random data base copy & paste, or telling in-room listeners that by listening to his portable sony walkman CDP he has gain experience more than the engineer using his Mackie, is quite the boast, and is no wonder people don't want to come to this forum any more for info.

I suggest again that you & May do a little more learning on the audio industry, and a lot less audio forum trolling. One simple question, have either of you ran a Studer let alone owned one? Right now I can see the both hitting the keys to even see what I'm talking about. It's very odd that the both of you know what ARC is but no clue what the other audio components are for in this hobby and biz.

What I'm saying is, stick to topics you have experience in if you expect those of us who are learned to pay you any credit. Neither of you have ever touched a compressor and here you are claiming to be experts on dynamic range. Give stereophile a break and don't make these pages look so stupid an ill-equipt to add opinion.

same trolling different topic

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

Sorry geoffy but the world doesn't exactly agree with you.

"In music, dynamic range is the difference between the quietest and loudest volume of an instrument, part or piece of music. In modern recording, this range is often limited through dynamic range compression, which allows for louder volume."

and

"The European Broadcasting Union, in EBU3342 Loudness Range, defines dynamic range as the difference between the quietest and loudest volume, a matter of macro-dynamics."

and

"dynamic range: the range of acceptable or possible volumes of sound occurring in the course of a piece of music or a performance."

and

"DR, the ratio of the largest to the smallest intensity of sound that can be reliably transmitted or reproduced by a particular sound system, measured in decibels."

and

"the range of signal amplitudes over which an electronic communications channel can operate within acceptable limits of distortion. The range is determined by system noise at the lower end and by the onset of overload at the upper end"

and

"dynamic range Audio. the ratio of the loudest to faintest sounds reproduced without significant distortion, usually expressed in decibels."

and

"here are some interesting numbers, collected from a variety of sources, that help one to understand the volume levels of various sources"

and, well as usual the lists go on for ever

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/

volume: quantity or power of sound; degree of loudness

geoff says "Huh?"

Hopefully you the readers have been able to comprehend the fundamental forces, the audio trilogy and loudness. If not I'm happy to work with you on your audio system to make it perform at it's potential. On TuneLand we tie the interchangable words of audio together so you can gain the understanding of how the audio chain as a whole works. Any good audio textbook does the same thing.

You have loudness, volume, dynamic range (the peaks of volume) and you tie them together with amplification, loudspeaker, sound pressure level. There's really no reason to be an unsuccessful listener as geoff, May and others (not actually doing the hobby) suggest. Today I personally tuned 12 audio systems. I did this by using our simple to follow "method of tuning". As you have read for 2 years now, it frustrates the dickens out of those that don't give the method it's "do". At the same time look at those who have embraced the "Tune", enjoying their new listening life with their high degree of successful listening. What's the difference in tone between geoff & May vs the Tunees? One is having success and the other still looking at audio as some type of mystery. Also, look at the stereophile forum asking itself why people are leaving the hobby. This again is simple, many of the people leaving here are coming to the TuneLand forum, either registering or getting ahold of us privately.

geoff above says

"Hey, Michael, is there anyone at ToonLand who can represent you in this discussion?"

mg

Not sure I know what ToonLand is, but TuneLand has been a part of more reviews than perhaps any other system plan since 1990.

Saying this, I think it's well & fine that geoff or anyone look at these dynamic range data bases. They don't replace listening but can be used as a guide if you look further into them. As well listeners should do study on the entire audio chain, and these more recent threads have brought light of this and even though geoff and May are here to add they personalities (sincere or not) to the list of many opinions, it brings the Q&A's to the front line. My suggestion would be to go through threads here and look at those who talk of successful listening and those who keep trying to pull hobbyist into defeat. If in audio means you haven't tried and having learned yet what is needed. This happens at all levels of listening rich or poor.

Studying Dynamic Range (beyond looking at an amateur data base) can help you learn many things, some of the most important are "real size" "real space" playback, and gaining a knowledge of the "recorded code". I've noticed on this forum that (at least since I've been here) the word recording is used, but no one talks about the code of recording. May, for example, doesn't even know what this is according to her making jest at the very mention of the phrase, but this phrase is also why many here fall into that unsuccessful playback. The hobby becomes elusive indeed if you don't know what the audio code even is, or how to control it. The "Method of Listening" TuneLand provides shows you how to control the variables of audio. Over 100,000 successful listeners use part of or the whole method.

recorded code & audio code

The recorded code is the information of the recording. The audio code is the recorded code as it is proccessed by analog (movement) through the system. The audio code is the tying together of electrical, mechanical and acoustical (the audio trilogy) as this information acclimates to the rules of physics while passing through mechanical conduits. If you don't get this part, it could be why you are not hearing the sound at a very high level of return.

The "Method of Tuning" is what is used to adjust the variables in music as it becomes analog.

BTW, I and the Tunees say this on about every thread we post on here, so when you see geoff or May try to put spins on this, just ignore them or go read the other threads and you'll see the same trolling practice by them. Keep reminding yourselves that what they do is normal for internet trolls. Once you go through this a couple of times, you'll not be so fooled by their attempt to disrupt. Honestly I blame this more on the Mods than I do them. May & geoff are just doing what they always have to gain some type of relevance. So when your reading and see these practices just look up http://www.bing.com/search?q=internet+trolling+definition&qs=AS&pq=internet+trolling&sk=AS1&sc=8-17&sp=2&cvid=548E63858F464506924AAF32350BA952&FORM=QBRE&ghc=1 and you'll be able to understand this social disorder.

It's a pain sometimes and disruptive, but I try to look at it as another chance to repeat the virtues of tuning. Honestly their like an advertising angency for the tune. Things that I would only get to promote once or twice here is multiplied many times over because of their need for posturing. So it's kinda turning something good out of bad everytime they invoke me, or Tunees or the Method of Tuning.

may & geoff are like a back pain, they are indeed a pain in the back, but they also get you out of work

happy listening folks, hope this topic is of help

michael green
MGA/RoomTune
http://tuneland.techno-zone.net/