Audiophile help: CD Dynamic Range Compression or Remastering ...?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Stephen J, Nov 25, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Claude

    Claude Senior Member

    Location:
    Luxembourg
    Out of my listening experience, DR7 means that the mastering is seriously flawed, if the initial release was DR12. It's hard not to hear these dynamic compression effects, once you know how they sound: harsh midrange, bloated, slightly distorted bass, "in your face" sound which is very fatiguing during longer listening or at higher levels

    The DR7 CD could still sound better overall if the initial release was very poorly mastered, with weird EQ or from bad tape copies.

    My personal warning lights go on at <DR9. With recent pop/rock recordings, your tolerance level towards compression must be higher unfortunately. I think the red/green scale on the DR website is too demanding. Most new releases - even potentially "audiophile" stuff such as acoustic jazz - are now <DR12, while they were DR12-15 in the 1980's and 90's.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2015
  2. ShallowMemory

    ShallowMemory Classical Princess

    Location:
    GB
    It's a very inexact thing, ideally we want no less than was applied to the original release but other things can come into play like it's true some might feel when a mastering engineer gets more dynamic range in his (or her) mastering some will then say they preferred the originals 'punchiness' (there's a reason often 45's were compressed) but at the edges I'm more for the EQ and overall sound rather absolute DR so preferring a remaster from much better tapes with a measured 10 over an original with say 12
     
  3. Maggie

    Maggie like a walking, talking art show

    Location:
    Toronto, Canada
    And the difference, as I suggest upthread, might be EQ as much as compression. One of the hallmarks of post-2000 EQ is pushing the bass hard.
     
  4. jtw

    jtw Forum Resident

    Compression isn't done just for the sake of doing it. Compression is done for the majority. The vast majority of people don't 'listen' to music, they have music 'on' (while driving, working in the garage, biking, etc.). So, if you're not sitting down in a chair listening, the easy choice is the compressed version.

    The best example is classical music with big drs. In a car, it may be impossible to listen to. Beatles stuff is a great example. Folks who have music 'on' make comments that they've never heard certain things in their songs until getting a remaster. That's because they don't hear the originally quiet passages until the music is compressed.
     
    rockledge likes this.
  5. Synthfreek

    Synthfreek I’m a ray of sunshine & bastion of positivity

    I find it flat out bizarre that someone can know what a DR number is yet not know about this site.
     
  6. drbryant

    drbryant Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I think that if you are listening on a Computer or on a desktop system that puts out 5-10 watts/channel, you might get some benefit from the louder mastering. Otherwise, go with the older CD.
     
    Front 242 Addict and Dave like this.
  7. I'll say quickly, among what others have said, that remasters with less DR tend to come from the idea that consumers don't know when to crank the music on their own, so the mastering bakes the crank into the (re)master.

    In essence, Oasis was worried that you wouldn't like their record enough to crank it on your own so they gave you no option. Personally I take offense to that. (also, in terms of remasters, squashing DR is a way that older music tries to compete with new sound "standards".)

    People are right to say it's a personal preference, but I think objectively speaking, squashed DR has an effect on music listening habits in that the fatiguing causes you to (want to) listen less-which I think is a deal breaker.

    Having said that, sometimes I prefer the squashed remaster because the original CD sounds TOO wimpy, mushy and the other kind of compressed.

    There was kind of a sweet spot for the original era of remasters (early to mid 90s) where they cleaned stuff up, sourced from original master tapes, but still cared about DR. Remasters from 2000s, 2010s have little worth.

    So if you have choice of remasters of a single title, the earlier the year it was done, usually, the better.

    Also, as the poster above points out loud (re)masters are also assuming that your sound system need compensation.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2015
  8. drbryant

    drbryant Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    I agree with this - loud mastering suits many situations. The benefits could outweigh the loss of sound quality. My mother is a music lover, goes to the Playboy Jazz FestivaL, etc. However, like many senior citizens she doesn't have a sound system. She has a Bose countertop player in the kitchen of her condo and the stock car stereo that came with her Honda Accord. I think that in most cases, a compressed recording would sound better. She did, however, complain that the remastered Ella CD she bought at FYE sounded "shrill."
     
  9. InStepWithTheStars

    InStepWithTheStars It's a miracle, let it alter you

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I'm not an audiophile, and I'm not concerned with the absolute best an album has ever sounded, just that the sound doesn't give me a headache. The 2009 Rolling Stones remasters grate on my ears after a while, so I replaced them with the 1994 releases. At the same time, I really dislike the most recent David Bowie remasters. I can't hear the drums and there's less separation between the instruments. I much prefer the forum-hated 1999 remasters - quite a bit of EQ but I don't find them fatiguing.
     
    rockledge likes this.
  10. Claude

    Claude Senior Member

    Location:
    Luxembourg
    For those situations, the compression could be done during playback. Since many audio devices are now software-based (smartphone app, streamer, etc), this feature could easily be added.

    Imagine for a moment that the majority of music listeners hear less well on their right ear, because that's where they have been holding their phone for hours per day, for years. Should mastering engineers make the right channel louder on music releases to compensate for this hearing damage?
     
    Robert C and Hutch like this.
  11. Stephen J

    Stephen J Forum Resident Thread Starter

    Location:
    Austin, TX
    The problem I have with "just listen to the CDs" is there is bias here. For example, before I heard about DRC, the fact that the newer versions were "remastered" made me think they sounded better because, well, I was told they sounded better! So I have no doubt that if, e.g., before I heard of DRC you played a 1990 version of Van Halen I and then the 2000 HDCD remaster, I would say the latter sounded better just because I know it's "remastered" so I expect it to.

    But, now that I know that the 1990 version has a DRC of 13 and the 2000 HDCD version has a DRC of 8, I might say the former sounds better because I now know about DRC!

    There would have to be some kind of blind sound test for me to know for sure because of these biases.
     
    agaraffa, hutchguv and Dave like this.
  12. drbryant

    drbryant Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Well, if the objective is to incentivize people to take good care of their ears, we should definitely keep the sound balanced - otherwise we'd be rewarding bad behavior. Is that the right answer?

    I was not aware that music files can be compressed by the consumer. If so, and it can be achieved with something as simple as a click, then uncompressed files could be the default - and that would be a wonderful thing. Like the "bass boost" button on those old boom boxes?
     
    Dave likes this.
  13. drbryant

    drbryant Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Interesting that you mention the 2009 Stones remastered. I check Stones Forums from time to time, and everyone talks about how bad they sound even though they probably don't know exactly why. But they know what compression sounds like and they've heard of this Forum. In a recent thread on the IORR Stones Forum, someone was asking about a planned Exile on Main Street vinyl reissue and another member replied that it might end up being compressed, and that the best thing to do is check reviews on the Steve Hoffman Forum before buying!
     
    Robert C likes this.
  14. rockledge

    rockledge Forum Resident

    Location:
    right here
    Indeed. I seems that 40 years ago music was made both for the masses and for those who like high quality music.
    That is no longer the case.
    Listen to rock bands like Journeys 70s stuff or Steely Dan and hear the wonderful work into making the music fit to listen to for serious listeners who enjoy the great sonics that nice gear can reproduce.
    Those bands both were great for audiophiles and for the masses who just wanted to hear songs they like.
    Now it seems everything is done merely for the masses and not with audiophiles in mind.
    Which is not surprising since very nice stereo gear is no longer part of most peoples living environments.

    I am in both camps. Most of the time I just want to hear great songs as background to my life.
    But at times I am a serious listener who wants to hear that bass shake windows and those guitars ring out.

    I consider compressing to get those passage to stand out to be corruption, and not necessary.
    Those who wanted to hear that detail in the past were serious listeners who had the gear and the desire to listen to the music that close.
    Having said that I enjoy, for example, the remaster of Dark Side of The Moon or In Search Of The Lost Chord. But as I say, remasters for me are just a supplemental listening experience that are sometimes interesting, just like remixes. But I would not want to be without the original versions.

    That is another thing about compression abuse that is true, compression poisoning sucks the air out of music, it destroys the air space between instruments.
    During rock the best producers made sure that the recordings were not just a bunch of instruments congealing and blasting out one solid sound, you could actually pick out individual instruments and focus on them because they were very discreetly separate from each other.
    An example of this is that if Bob Ezrins production on the Alice Cooper Band albums had been compressed to smithereens those albums would suck. Halo of Flies would sound like just more blasty generic pop music instead of a great song that was inventive and had wonderful musicianship that you didn't have to concentrate on to hear.
     
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2015
    Dynamic Ranger, formu_la and Dave like this.
  15. If only producers would take as much heed...
     
    Dave and c-eling like this.
  16. InStepWithTheStars

    InStepWithTheStars It's a miracle, let it alter you

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I had all six '70s albums in that series and didn't bother replacing them, since the compression didn't bother me too much... until I ended up getting bad headaches after listening to them continuously. They are gone now. :) I traded them in for a bunch of other, more dynamic CDs.

    But then again, I think the 2003 AC/DC remasters sound fine, and they're cited as some of the most compressed masters out there, so what do I know?
     
  17. Dukes Travels

    Dukes Travels Forum Resident

    Its a good bet the DR12 will sound better than the dr7.
    By all means go with the standard answer on here "use yer ears dude!" but the concensus is that the DR7 will be smashed to hell.
    Ive only heard them be listenable after adding replay gain tags. Even then it still sounds poor.
    Electronic music suffers slightly less. I think the kraftwerk remasters got to around 8 or 9DR.
     
    Front 242 Addict likes this.
  18. InStepWithTheStars

    InStepWithTheStars It's a miracle, let it alter you

    Location:
    North Carolina
    This is definitely true. The thing is, though, the recent Bowie remasters that I feel have less separation are actually the more dynamic release. The 1999s have a fair bit of compression and EQ and usually hover around DR9 or so, but the recent remasters are more true to the original recordings. The strange thing is, the original recordings must have been pretty poorly EQ'd, because on the "Life On Mars" remaster, I can only barely hear the snare drum, and no cymbals. The 1999 series gets a lot of criticism for having high EQ, especially on the drums, but when they're otherwise inaudible, I think it's kind of necessary.

    Whenever I record, I do my best to get a good stereo positioning of the tracks, ensure that the final playback doesn't go into the red, and then do minor corrections to the finished recording afterwards. Strange as it may seem, I think it sounds kind of bad when the singer's voice distorts. I know, I know, not the generally accepted mindset, right?
     
  19. Dukes Travels

    Dukes Travels Forum Resident

    This.
    We have some of the finest technological advances in equalizing and manipulation of our audio at our disposal and people still cant adjust the treble and bass on old CD's.
    Most of the time that's all they're doing on a "remaster" anyway.
     
  20. rockledge

    rockledge Forum Resident

    Location:
    right here
    I never cared for the way Bowies music was arranged and produced.
    Other than the singles and a few other songs, I am not a fan anyway.
    But, compression can be used to squash the dynamic range quite severely without destroying the music.
    Compression that merely changes the dynamic range but doesn't drive the recording into distortion and destroy the timbre of the instruments is often desirable. It is great for car listening.
    During rock , top 40 stations sounded to me like the heavily compressed, and it always sounded great in cars.

    The problem is when they use compression to the point of the compressor being nothing but an extreme limiter that sounds to me like it flattens the top of the sine wave.
    I record and engineer very similar to that and use no more compression than what it takes to knock out transient peaks on individual instruments and can mix well enough to often not even need much compression on the end product.
    If the instruments are recorded well enough and compressed properly ( when necessary) and mixed well, heavy compression is not necessary.

    I get the impression that modern producers/engineers are using compression to hide the fact that they are not very good at recording instruments and voices and are using compression to rectify problems that shouldn't exist.

    And the idea that it makes the music "louder" is just nuts. And pointless. I don't know of any music player that lacks a volume control.

    It might give the impression of being "too loud" by making the music distort the way a transistor radio cranked up all the way distorts, but it isn't "louder".
    It is almost as if modern producers are using compression the same way guitarists use the gain control on solid state guitar amps.
     
  21. ukrules

    ukrules Forum Resident

    Location:
    Kentucky
    It seems like the first wave of remastering series in early 90s were "kind" to the music and had genuine intentions. This includes Stones, Floyd, Yes, etc. Others have stronger debate but still not "abusive" like Zep and Genesis. Subsequent waves are cash grabs IMHO.
     
    shaboo likes this.
  22. InStepWithTheStars

    InStepWithTheStars It's a miracle, let it alter you

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I understand the use of compression to cater to those who listen exclusively in the terrible earbuds Apple devices ship with (the ones where the speakers are on the OUTSIDE of the headphones), so that when they listen at work or on the bus or something like that they can annoy every- I mean, hear it fine without having to constantly adjust the volume (this board doesn't have strikethrough, damn). however logic would dictate that the compressed recording would be more fitting to be sold exclusively as the digital download, since the fifteen weirdos left who still buy CDs would have high-end stereos that the audio would sound crappy on smash-compressed. I think it would make more sense that the physical media, at this point, caters to the hobbyist who, 9 times out of 10, would be bothered by the compression (why are CDs brickwalled but vinyl pristine nowadays?). Obviously the better solution is to stop squaring recordings, but since Rick Rubin still rules the roost of production and I don't think he's ever going to change his mind about louder=better...
     
  23. Dukes Travels

    Dukes Travels Forum Resident

    So anyone who doesnt buy physical medium music, doesnt give a toss about compression?
    You cant be serious?
    Also, vinyl doesn't escape brickwalling and high compression.
     
    Dave and ukrules like this.
  24. Rgfinch

    Rgfinch King Rocky

    Location:
    Uk
    You're assuming all amps have tone controls !!
     
    Dave likes this.
  25. InStepWithTheStars

    InStepWithTheStars It's a miracle, let it alter you

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I'm not saying that. However, the ratio of people who don't care about compression (or know what it is) are unlikely to be the buyers of physical media. People who want to curate a physical collection are more likely to be bothered by these kinds of practices than people who just want to download the top 40 hits. Obviously there are people who do downloads who hate the way that everything is hypercompressed.

    But if you were to conduct a survey to determine, between CD buyers and downloaders, how bothered they are by this level of compression, I think that CD buyers would have a higher rate.

    I'm not saying "only brickwall downloads" - the obvious solution is to simply do away with smash-compression anyway - but I would expect that the buyers of physical media would be more upset by this than people who download the songs from iTunes or whatever. As such, I find it kind of odd that, while vinyl is usually given a more dynamic mix (yes, not always), CDs are released in the state they are. But the myth that LOUDER IS BETTER prevails long into 2015, and regrettably I can't see it going away.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine