Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dynamic compression database

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Dynamic compression database

    This is useful to identify which masterings / versions suffer from dynamic compression vs those that still have great range. Possibly the resurgence of vinyl has to do with the older masterings being used that haven't been compressed.

    Look up your favourites here:
    http://dr.loudness-war.info/

    Simple and interesting reading:
    https://www.computeraudiophile.com/c...-no-loud-r643/

    Needless to say - it explains why I have found disappointment when "updating" certain music to re-mastered versions. My ears and speakers confirm the old stuff just is better :-)

  • #2
    THAT is really damn interesting.
    Basically, good recordings were made (on vinyl) in the '70s & '80s. Good CDs were made in the '80s & '90s.
    Everything since 2000 has been CR*P.

    Not that you can't find good current recordings - they are just (sadly) VERY far from the norm.

    Sample:

    Brothers In Arms - '85 CD had a DR (dynamic range) of 16
    the 2005 "remastered" (meaning "ruined" in this case) CD has a DR of 08
    (basically <= 07 is about as bad as you can get, "10" is the balance point, >= 13 is pretty dang good

    Love Over Gold went from 14 (in '82, on CD) to 11 in '96

    Knopfler's "Golden Heart" (which I really like some of the tunes on) is 08.
    "All The Road Running" (w/ Emmylou Harris) is 07 ! YEOW ! ( 07 & 08 are pretty much equally bad = COMPRESSED)

    Abbey Road (vinyl '69) has a DR of 13, vinyl from '83 (and later) dropped to 10.

    Cosmic Thing (The B-52s, '89 CD) were mostly 13 (not bad at all) - but there is ONE CD vers. from '89 rated 16.
    Keane (which I really can't believe how bad the orig. CD sounds) is rated 05. The worst I've seen (so far).

    Fun to browse - and look up YOUR music collection.

    Comment


    • #3
      For the record every single CD I've bought from Reference Recordings, both before and since they introduced the HDCD process, has been very good to excellent (although I can't measure the dynamic range) primarily because "Professor" Keith Johnson is a super recording engineer. That said, their catalog is limited.
      Paul

      Originally posted by Chris Roemer View Post
      THAT is really damn interesting.
      Basically, good recordings were made (on vinyl) in the '70s & '80s. Good CDs were made in the '80s & '90s.
      Everything since 2000 has been CR*P.

      Not that you can't find good current recordings - they are just (sadly) VERY far from the norm.

      Sample:

      Brothers In Arms - '85 CD had a DR (dynamic range) of 16
      the 2005 "remastered" (meaning "ruined" in this case) CD has a DR of 08
      (basically <= 07 is about as bad as you can get, "10" is the balance point, >= 13 is pretty dang good

      Love Over Gold went from 14 (in '82, on CD) to 11 in '96

      Knopfler's "Golden Heart" (which I really like some of the tunes on) is 08.
      "All The Road Running" (w/ Emmylou Harris) is 07 ! YEOW ! ( 07 & 08 are pretty much equally bad = COMPRESSED)

      Abbey Road (vinyl '69) has a DR of 13, vinyl from '83 (and later) dropped to 10.

      Cosmic Thing (The B-52s, '89 CD) were mostly 13 (not bad at all) - but there is ONE CD vers. from '89 rated 16.
      Keane (which I really can't believe how bad the orig. CD sounds) is rated 05. The worst I've seen (so far).

      Fun to browse - and look up YOUR music collection.

      Comment


      • #4
        Lots of interesting browsing, awesome database.

        Some notes:

        Looks like early 70s vinyl had the most consistent good dynamics.

        The format isn't the problem. The problem is most likely in the business office or engineering. In the case of reissued vinyl that looks better as a whole but probably because it's targeted for audiophiles.

        Many reissues are a downgrade but many are not.

        A few reissues that I have may have a little lower dynamics but detail and clarity is improved.

        Those 80s ceedeezs weren't so bad.

        Comment


        • #5
          The other problem with compilation albums (within an artist, but worse across artists) is volume normalisation means everything gets some sort of scaling applied. I have a feeling a lot of the mastering of these was simply done by a computer and not a person using some algorithm that had a minimum volume level and acceptable level of compression.

          Or... it could be clever marketing by the record labels, ensuring the original mastered recordings have sales potential if uncompressed quality is your goal.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Dave Bullet View Post
            The other problem with compilation albums (within an artist, but worse across artists) is volume normalisation means everything gets some sort of scaling applied. I have a feeling a lot of the mastering of these was simply done by a computer and not a person using some algorithm that had a minimum volume level and acceptable level of compression.

            Or... it could be clever marketing by the record labels, ensuring the original mastered recordings have sales potential if uncompressed quality is your goal.
            You think they’re that smart? Usually better mixes already exist anyway. Compilation albums always seem to me like the record company is doing nothing more than looking for the quick buck.

            Mark

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks for posting this. My #1 band from teen until I die is AC/DC, and I'm seeing an overall excellent DR across many of their CD.

              It's turning out about every CD I consider in my favorites list (which is massive) of their entire collection has really outstanding DR on CD.
              Feel free to rip my assumptions apart when wrong, or fix if close.

              Passive Radiators:
              All PR(s) Vd must at-least double all woofer(s) Vd. Calc = Sd x Xmax to get Vd for all PR(s) and all woofer(s). If all PR(s) Vd at-least double all woofer(s) Vd they'll work.
              For woofer(s) with large Xmax vs Sd, all PR(s) with Xmax at-least double all woofer(s) Xmax will work.
              A PR max weight is said to be its Mms x3

              PR Systems - tight focus with key parameters.
              PR Speaker Design - thorough coverage.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Thump View Post
                Thanks for posting this. My #1 band from teen until I die is AC/DC, and I'm seeing an overall excellent DR across many of their CD.

                It's turning out about every CD I consider in my favorites list (which is massive) of their entire collection has really outstanding DR on CD.
                yes. I'm using it as another reason why some music sounds crap on my speakers. I'd be the first to admit my speakers are at fault but when I am using drivers within their acceptable passbands and the same drivers that others have used I look for other causes.

                If it helps others find versions to extract the most out of their systems then all good.

                As for AC/DC.... Rock legends!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Dave Bullet Exactly right thinking on trying to figure out "is it me, or is this a piece of crap recording!"

                  One CD that immediately comes to mind is a Rolling Stones CD. I can't recall its name but it has many of their classics on it like Jumping Jack Flash, Paint it Black and several others.

                  It is fawking horrible sounding. It was years ago, I had mediocre system at best and the CD sounded like absolute garbage. It didn't make sense that it sounded that bad though, especially since Van Halen, ZZ Top and so many others sounded "extremely similar" in quality to each other, which was acceptable quality given the system at the time.

                  The stones sounded so god damn bad. It was a custom CD made as a gift from a friend that had some other stones songs and wasn't a 1 to 1 of the studio version, so I thought ok they screwed it up or used heavily compressed songs maybe. I purchased the primary CD (bulk of songs it had on it) from a local store at the time (believe it was Circuit City RIP) the next time I was in there and happen to notice it walking the isles. It reminded me so I scooped it up.

                  Got home, plopped it in aaannnd!.... exact same. Total, complete trash. Couldn't believe it. Was certain it was my crappy gear. Nope. It was the crappy engineer that mastered it. That was my first real "aha" moment so many years ago (still teen); the beginning of me thinking about all the processes that go into mastering something and just how screwed up an otherwise beautiful piece of audio art can be destroyed by a sh!tty engineer or bad studio equipment, or both.

                  I've encountered same thing with DVD and BluRays too.

                  One was a ZZ-Top concert where it sounded like trash maybe 1/3rd to 1/2 through the concert and then suddenly started sounding better and better until it reached a much better point, and then it stayed like that the rest of the concert.

                  My best guess - the engineer at the boards was drunk off his/her ***, or not paying attention, or both, when they started. They realized after everything got going and start tuning it until it started sounding right, then left it there. Wish I could remember the name of that one. It seems literally to be what I just described though. Funny and terrible at the same time.
                  Feel free to rip my assumptions apart when wrong, or fix if close.

                  Passive Radiators:
                  All PR(s) Vd must at-least double all woofer(s) Vd. Calc = Sd x Xmax to get Vd for all PR(s) and all woofer(s). If all PR(s) Vd at-least double all woofer(s) Vd they'll work.
                  For woofer(s) with large Xmax vs Sd, all PR(s) with Xmax at-least double all woofer(s) Xmax will work.
                  A PR max weight is said to be its Mms x3

                  PR Systems - tight focus with key parameters.
                  PR Speaker Design - thorough coverage.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    It's obvious on an accurate system. My partner and I are laughing at some of the FLAC rips of our collection we are playing - awful. At first I thought it was my DAC / cabling, speakers, amplification... then you play a great recording and the speakers with enough amp grunt are able to precisely play the peaks in the music - giving it a real sense of space, punch, soundstage.. all the good stuff.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X