Well, this weekend is Pacific Audio Fest 2024 and I figure since it's nearby in Seattle and they've decided to make it every 2 years (next in 2026), I'll pop down for a look and listen for a couple days. It's fun staying incognito for the most part as a "more objective" audiophile even if this might not be the prevailing culture at these shows to get a sense of how the megabuck systems perform, what's potentially exciting, and observe the trajectory of the hobby. Given the busyness of work these days, I'll just take my time this year on the show reports with pictures, sharing some thoughts over the next couple weeks.
For this post, it's time for an "As We Hear It" article based on reader E-mails.
I. First Watt Amplifiers & Progressing as Audiophiles
June 26, 2024
Hi Achi:
Your blog took me here (ie. E-mail address) and thanks for all your wonderful work to make the audiophiles' world a better place. Here is my little story.
I have been an audiophile for as long as I can remember. But only recently decided to get serious about the equipment side of things. Thanks to the YouTube channel called Audiophiliac by Steve Guttenberg, I quickly decided to get a pair of Magnepan speakers. That was wonderful, due to planar construction, the transparency and soundstage is amazing.
And because of that I had become a fan of Steve, and of course he seems like a trustworthy guy with years of experience, so I trust what he claims in the video. So not long afterwards, I paid $4000 for a First Watt SIT-3 amplifier, which he made very exaggerated claims about. Only after I received it and AB tested it, it sounds the same as my $600 integrated class D amp, I simply can’t hear any difference! I have sent a comment to Steve and asked about it, he is no longer making the claim anymore, just left a vague reply. So I did a bit of searching online and stumbled on your blog, then I realize it's all marketing. For the technology in audio we have now, the only things that make a difference in listening to music is completely different speaker technology and room treatments, the rest of the equipment is just so good now even for a fairly cheap one can do the job adequately.
That experience left me confused. Seemingly trustworthy people and trustworthy YouTube channels, making exaggerated claims, sometimes false claims. Then I dug deeper and realized the magazine like Stereophile and the like have been making exaggerated claims for decades.
I wish your blog can be read and seen by more people. This snake oil business should be stopped.
Thank you for taking time reading this. All the best to you and keeping up the good work.
Regards,
MT from Sydney
Hey MT, your E-mail is certainly far from the first of this kind that I have received over the years. You're in good company among frustrated audiophiles questioning the claims out there. I think there are a couple of issues at play with much of the typical subjective-only, especially old-skool audiophile way of talking about the products as Guttenberg does:
1. Stagnation.
2. Exaggeration and hype.
Despite their years of writing and listening to hi-fi, I've often wondered whether that older generation of audio reviewers (Guttenberg, Reichert, Fremer, etc. most quickly come to mind) actually learned much about the technologies they have been writing about for decades. One wonders about the sound quality they're actually experiencing, especially when I see images of their sound rooms and how small and cluttered they appear. They often will almost idolize older technologies like tube amps and turntables that are not actually capable of modern high-fidelity performance, and don't seem to show an understanding of their own limitations at such advanced age (discussed in the last AWHI). As such, is Guttenberg then utilizing facts and knowledge to drive his recommendations, or is it that just because there's the Pass name and his buddy Herb Reichert gave it a positive review, he's positively predisposed to the SIT-3?
Objectively, this amp performs poorly as a high-fidelity device (BTW, previously, I've played with the SIT-2). With something like 8W/8Vrms into 8Ω at 1% THD, and >0.2% by 1W, it simply does not deserve accolades like Reichert's claim that "The First Watt SIT-3 seemed to preserve the geometry of the original harmonic relationships better than any amp I can remember, and thus made instruments sound quite real." when clearly it's adding distortions to those "harmonic relationships" he waxes poetic about. As usual, there is nothing wrong with liking this kind of sound, but what's happening is simply not as he describes - the idea of "preserving" the "original harmonic relationships". Much less "better than any amp I can remember" in all his decades of reviewing?! How does he even know this is the reason he thinks it sounds good, unless he measured, would his ears actually quantify exactly how much 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. harmonic is in the signal given that he is attributing the sound to its harmonics?!
I had a look at this Guttenberg preview video for the SIT-3 and marveled at how he can so easily rattle off claims like how much "juicier", "bolder", "richer", "harmonically" impressive, "body, soul, soundstage is massive" compared to the Pass Labs XA25 (25W into 8Ω). He claims the SIT-3 is "about beauty". And "magic" in the later video. Personally, I find these kinds of descriptions meaningless because they do not really convey the experience in any concrete way; more likely hyperbolic, haughty bloviation of impressions that do not correlate to actual sound waves - highly probable mental fabrications. Let us not forget that the "magic" and "beauty" of music is derived from the albums created by the artists and studio engineers. Sonic editorialization imparted by the amplifier or other reproduction hardware which Guttenberg seems to eulogize is by definition running counter to the hi-fi hobby that historically has strived for transparency.
So let's get concrete. MT, since you're willing to spend $4000 on the amp, I assume the Magnepans are one of their higher end models, let's say something like the $9000 Magnepan 3.7i. IMO, never spend more on the amp than your speakers unless the amp is a collector item, which could be the case for the SIT-3. We can see that those Maggies are rated at 4Ω impedance with sensitivity of only 86dB/m/2.83V. Assuming the speaker impedance is relatively flat around 4Ω and we want to keep distortion below 1%, if you're sitting 10 feet away (3m since these are tall 6' dipole speakers - not a good idea to skimp on space), being driven by the First Watt SIT-3 (~18W into 8Ω, doubling to 16W into 4Ω), the peak amplitude would be around 92dB SPL for both speakers driven, or only 89dB for a single speaker in a typical room with the speakers away from the walls (we can use calculators like this and this to get the estimates).
Since we don't want to go deaf but still want some hi-fi headroom, for medium-loud reference playback, it would be nice to be able to reach at least 85dB average with transient peaks of at least 15dB which puts us over 100dB SPL both speakers when you hit some really dynamic orchestral recordings for example. To achieve this, you should consider about 250W amps for the Maggies to hit those transients! (By nature, the Magnepans are not known for massive dynamic impact, all the more reason to make sure we feed it enough current to get the best out of them.)
Rather than listening to people like Guttenberg to start, I would recommend seeing what the manufacturer says first. While Magnepan seems to be a bit cagey about recommended amps for the 3.7i, here's what they say in the 1.7i manual which has similar specs:
"These speakers should be paired with high-end audio equipment for the most ideal effects. A powerful and/or high-current amplifier(s) is best---certain exceptions apply but generally an amp ought to be able to produce at least 120 watts per channel (RMS) into 4 ohms in order to properly drive the MG1.7i's. Within reason more power and/or higher current is better; there isn't really an upper limit. In addition to the system components, the input signal should also be high-quality. Subpar components and/or input(s) will be sonically evident."
Sounds reasonable. Personally, for power-hungry higher end Maggies in a comfortable sized room, I would check out some Bryston, Parasound Halo A21(+), maybe the Pass X250.8 if you don't mind splurging. Heck, for fun, you might even want to try the inexpensive 2 x Fosi Audio V3 Mono PFFB (~US$140 each, capable of over 200W/28Vrms, 4Ω, 0.1% THD discussed in the last 2 weeks) and have a shoot-out going! I bet you'll hear more "oomph" and clarity compared to the Pass SIT-3 at a fraction of the price.
This is all to say that the First Watt SIT-3 is underpowered for these kinds of speakers but would be fine with high-sensitivity horns for example. If Guttenberg made such a recommendation, well, maybe he's assuming that everyone lives in a small apartment with tiny sound room, Maggies pushed closer to walls, and noise sensitive neighbors. One more thing, the output impedance for the SIT-3 at 0.25Ω isn't impressive when matched with low-impedance speakers. 🤨
As per Lord Kelvin:
"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts advanced to the stage of science."
That's what it takes to be progressive in any scientific and technological endeavor. As far as I can tell, this is not within the ability of people like Guttenberg who make opinionated claims without evidence or even audiophile common sense to suggest evolution in understanding over the decades. I believe that we need to leave these kinds of reviews behind if we actually want to learn how this works; or at least just view them as mainly non-serious performative entertainment - nothing wrong with that I suppose. There is nothing in audiophilia that cannot be measured and demonstrated to be real, avoiding the dramatic language, with absolutely no need to resort to "magic" if what we're after is reality-based value as hi-fi consumers. Let's be insightful (starting with ourselves and what we can actually perceive), let's be honest, and of course, let's be real.
Good luck MT! Wishing you great times ahead with your music enjoyment and hardware explorations!
Well, in praise of Guttenberg, at least he was disappointed in the sound of the Bose 901 Series VI speakers which should not be a surprise. A friend owns some Bose 901 Series V and they've always sounded boringly dull, projected a diffuse unfocused soundstage, tonally lacking, with very unrefined treble. I also personally don't like how they look, stand and all, yuck. (Bose 901 measurements here and here.)
--------------------
II. Poor Dynamic Range Albums: Mad As Hell, and I'm Not Going To Take This Anymore! 😡
June 29, 2024Hi Archimago,
I'm a fan of yours and have been inspired by your blog to write complaint emails to as many labels and bands as I can find regarding record labels' overuse of compression in heavy metal. However, after six months of emailing, I haven't had any success. While I have no interest in social media, I believe a public approach might be more effective.
As someone who clearly enjoys social media and public writing, you are in a much better position than I am to make an impact. Would you consider writing a blog post encouraging your readers to publicly post on the bands' and labels' social media pages? I believe this is the only realistic way to bring about real change.
I am willing to help in any way I can.
Thanks for your time.
Dan
Hey there Dan, well, let's talk about this topic. To be honest while I like writing and putting ideas on the blog, I'm not active in the world of social media. Just not enough time in the day with the full-time job and kids.
Over the years, there have been various attempts at improving the dynamic range quality from artists and music labels. For example, mastering engineer Ian Shepherd started Dynamic Range Day back in 2010. And there's also the Bring Peace to the Loudness War petition from 2016.
I'm not sure how much impact they have had to the music industry. For years, I've criticized the mainstream audiophile press that they have not adequately addressed the topic of dynamic range compression for their readers. Also a reader once suggested "Full Dynamic Range" as a marketing slogan that could be used.
Indeed, maybe grassroots messaging and comments to the artists and labels might have more of an impact assuming there are enough of us wanting to raise our voices.
July 17, 2024
To ensure our efforts align effectively with our goals, I've outlined clear objectives:
1) Gain recognition from the band and label,
2) Foster professional and courteous discussions,
and ultimately 3) Advance towards improved mixes.
To achieve these goals, I propose a focused approach: Let's initiate thoughtful and well-articulated discussions on Epica's social media pages. By doing so, we aim to capture the attention of both the band and their label, thus progressing towards gaining recognition. Moreover, we should encourage others to join the conversation, sharing their viewpoints whether they support or challenge our perspectives. This approach not only promotes engagement but also demonstrates that our concerns resonate with a wider audience.
By initiating these discussions in a respectful manner, we lay the groundwork for achieving our objectives.
Here is a template to use for posting on Epica's social media pages:
I've been diving into the audio dynamics of Epica's "The Second Stone" (from album Quantum Enigma) and noticed something striking. The compression levels here are far more aggressive than what you'd find in death metal bands like Wormed and Defeated Sanity. Peaks ranging from 0.00 dB RMS to -7.10 dB suggest clipping and distortion issues.
Let's discuss in the comments!
Wormed's "Virtual Teratogenesis" maintains a DR9, with peaks at -1.00 dB and RMS at -11.68 dB, demonstrating a broader dynamic range and clearer sonic details throughout its duration. Similarly, Defeated Sanity's "Propelled Into Sacrilege" also exhibits a DR9, with peaks at -0.10 dB and RMS at -10.14 dB, showcasing a wider dynamic range compared to "The Second Stone".
The aggressive compression in "The Second Stone" obscures its intricate details under overwhelming volume, thereby diminishing its potential impact. A more spacious and dynamically varied mix could significantly enhance listener engagement and allow each element to shine more brightly.
My original email needs updating as I've learned a lot more since then. Producers read album reviews, so this is definitely worth acting on. It would be worthwhile to email reviewers, asking them to speak more about the album mix.
Specific examples of overly compressed albums would be Epica's album The Quantum Enigma. Another example is comparing Judas Priest's 30th-anniversary British Steel release with tracks included in the 50 Heavy Metal Years of Music collection.
It's great that you've built up a large following, but I feel like at this point, all we're doing is agreeing with what's already agreed upon. To progress to the next stage, we need to start engaging with those who haven't considered how an album is mixed, including the people involved in the mixing process. That's why it's best to encourage your readers to publicly post their complaints on Epica's social media.
All the best,
Dan
I feel your pain, Dan! Looks like you're a big fan of the symphonic metal genre and Epica in particular but sick and tired of the dynamic range compression ("loudness war"). I think you're right. Those of us already in the know about dynamic range compression have agreed for years that this is a problem... How do we now assert some influence toward a wider discussion with other music lovers and those who do music production? I agree with the need to foster professional and courteous discussions in order to effectively influence change.
I had a look/listen to The Quantum Enigma and see that it's an average DR6 which is indeed a bit too compressed for my liking as well. For readers wondering, this is what the waveform looks like for "The Second Stone" that Dan's complaining about:
Alas, limited variability throughout the track and there's clipping near the start. Unnecessarily fatiguing. BTW: Do not buy the 24/96 "hi-res" version. It's just upsampled stuff, easily downsampled to 16/44.1 and you lose nothing (another example that we should be "post-Hi-Res" in our thinking). |
Cool track and I can certainly imagine how a more dynamic mix/master would have added a lot more power and articulation to the piece, allowing the percussion to hit harder, more nuances in those high-speed complex guitars, with less overall unnecessary distortion, thus allowing the artist to convey climactic moments over those 5 minutes. I noticed on the album there are tracks like the more gentle Asian-inspired "The Fifth Guardian" (BTW, this track sounds beautifully holographic when I listened using X-talk Shaper DSP). Given the intended drama and scale inherent in the operatic symphonic metal genre, for sure, better use of wider dynamic range could further improve emotional engagement for fans!
Alas, just one example of so many lost opportunities over so many years. 😒 I believe this is mainly the fault of record labels who chose loudness over quality, certain mastering engineers, although artists must also take some blame since this is their work ending up like this. I hope that artists will look at their legacy and consider whether the sound they leave behind is going to be a source of pride rather than done for short-sighted "I'm louder and got more attention" gain.
These days, with sharing and feedback to artists available over social media on X/Twitter, FaceBook, Instagram, YouTube, TikTok, Pinterest, Reddit, etc., by all means readers, send a note out and see if the artists respond to complaints about the quality of their productions. This could send a powerful message and provide necessary pressure to inform change.
As an audiophile community, we're simply not a huge group, but sometimes it only takes a few loud voices to convey a strong message. Don't be afraid, be that agent of change! Shout it out from the rooftops if you have to like this: 😁
For Epica fans like Dan, here's what I see - leave a note at these places:
Epica on Patreon - definitely let them know if you're a paying patron!
Good luck Dan and other fans on sending out the messages to your preferred bands/artists. Hope they, the label, and their support people hear the feedback and maybe with upcoming albums you'll see at least DR9; that'll be a good start before maybe even double digits. 😐
Don't forget that money talks so sometimes the best thing to do is just not buy higher margin products like deluxe sets or the physical releases like their CDs or LPs - and let them know why.
On a positive note, there are metal bands out there that understand the importance of "Full Dynamic Range". Dan sent me this link of Mithras' On Strange Loops [The Hi-Res Full Dynamic Range Edition]. Nice, I hope more artists can appreciate the issue and release versions like these! And looking at the comments, we can see that many fans appreciated the improved quality.
--------------------
One last thing, as I mentioned last year, we can achieve significantly better dynamic range by taking a multichannel/Atmos mix which adheres to Dolby's -18dB LKFS/-1dB TP loudness guidelines and fold down to 2-channel stereo. For example, I see that Darko recently lamented on the loss of DR in Oasis' recent Definitely Maybe 30th Anniversary remaster. Well, let's take a look at the multichannel/Atmos rip folded into stereo and normalized to 100%:
As you can see, for this track, dynamic range from the multichannel mix (DR10) is even better than the original 1994 release (DR6) which is better than the current 30th Anniversary CD (a mere DR5).
Oasis is not known for great sound quality, but at least the difference with improved dynamic contrast is obvious. This downfold would also be superior sounding IMO than the noise and obvious distortions on vinyl rips even with higher DR values which could be mainly artifactual.
Here's a look at the DR for the full 2024 Definitely Mainly multichannel album converted to 2-channel stereo:
NOTE: Just a quickie conversion to show the DR values. If I seriously wanted this album in stereo, would fine-tune the multichannel fold-down parameters and normalize the peak levels back to ~100%. |
Average album DR10 - I don't think I've ever seen a digital release of an Oasis studio album with that much dynamic range! Now that, my audiophile friends, should be the direction of future remasters to get me even mildly interested in repurchasing the same music again.
Hope you're enjoying the music, audiophiles!
Awesome post. Thanks for sharing my ideas! To anyone reading this who enjoys social media, leave a respectful comment about the mix and dynamic range on the labels' and bands' Facebook pages. A few albums I've enjoyed with a nice mix are Origin's Chaosmos (label: Agonia Records) and Officium Triste's Hortus Venenum (label: Transcending Obscurity Records). some albums let down by the mix, such as Nile's The Underworld Awaits Us All (label: Napalm Records) and An Abstract Illusion's Woe (label: Willowtip Records).
ReplyDeleteA pleasure and thanks for the discussions Dan!
DeleteKeep up the good fight guys.
The desire amongst audiophiles to see good dynamic range in the music we enjoy - especially genres like rock, pop, hard rock, metal continues to be a massive challenge. Without any kind of loudness standardization with 2-channel music, unless consumers speak up and let their favourite artists know, sadly, I think we're just not going to get anywhere after all these decades.
Even if it takes baby-steps, as a start, I think music labels and artists should *expect* consumers to complain if their album averages at anything less than DR6! If they can even start with that message that there's a threshold at which they will get a good number of complaints (even better, requests to return the product), that will at least put the dynamic range topic on their radar.
Hi, Archimago!
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post about DR Meter - I've been messing with it recently (never heard of it before, no idea why), and measured my whole library (around 500GB), with some very interesting results. Classical music is usually fine, some jazz too, but pop/rock is in general very poor... A notable exception are some editions of Brothers in Arms by Dire Straits, namely the Matushita and the Mofi ones, that can reach around DR15. Supertramp also has some nice records with high DR.
Saying this, as with most things, there can be such a thing as too much Dynamic Range - some Telarc recordings of classical musical can be unbearable to hear due to that, the softer passages are inaudible, and the louder ones are just too loud. Compression and eq, when properly and tastefully used, are very useful tools!
I had no idea Atmos editions could bring such significant improvements of DR, I'll check some of them. But, in all honesty, I find the most significant portion of those measurements the Peaks - with great numbers, the lowest one is -9dB! Wow! The main complaint I have with music recorded post-2000 is lack of digital headroom, even more than lack of dynamic range (and the two don't necessarily go together, I'me measured high DR records with almost no digital headroom, with all peaks close to 0dB). Even jazz records, with notable exceptions like ECM, tend be too close to 0dB, classical music being once more the exception. For this reason, I set the digital volume on my streamer to -6db, to create some digital headroom, and I find music to be quite more enjoyable this way (being a Sabre based streamer, it's a 32-bit volume control, meaning the -6dB will have almost no impact on resolution).
Thanks for the post!
Hey there jorge,
DeleteNice that you scanned your 500GB library for a look! Yup, depending on the genre, you're going to see trends whether tending towards good (classical, most jazz) or just plain awful (Iggy Pop's Raw Power with DR1, baby!).
I agree, there's no need to go crazy over the DR-value, sometimes too high is a problem as well. Some can indeed be too dynamic such that the listener will have to turn it way up for the softer passages and the peaks can be frighteningly loud. I think between DR10-15 is great, with DR12 being usually a sweet spot for most "natural"-sounding music that has retained dynamic excitement.
Regarding the peak levels, for the most part it's OK for the peaks to hit close to 0dBFS. So long as we're not seeing significant intersample overs. So for example, if say a jazz recording has DR13 and a few peaks at 0dBFS, it likely just represents the engineer extracted the most from the bit-depth with normalization of peaks to 100%. Highly unlikely that the music was clipped or risks issues like +3dBTP (true peak).
However, if we're looking at a pop album with dynamic compressed DR5 and 0dBFS hits all over the place, then beware and definitely put in that headroom protection with -3 to -6dBFS as you're doing!
Cool, Archimago - many thanks for the tips on intersample overs, I'll investigate more into the subject!
DeleteRegarding DR: I think audiophiles need to get up to date a bit on this issue. It's an artists (musician, engineer, producer) decision, whether we like it or not. Modern style is to have some volume compression - more than in the old days.
ReplyDeleteYou can not like it,, but that's how artists want their sound these days.
I agree that music shouldn't be totally squashed, but the complaints as if everything should have a DR of 12-16 are sort of out of place.
Lots of music - rock and hip hop simple doesn't have much dynamic range. It's all pretty much at the same loudness, so the DR number is going to be low in any case.
Hi Danny, thanks for your input.
DeleteI agree that saying everything should have a high dynamic range is not true. I've enjoyed albums with very low dynamic range. However, I can't agree that rock music is all at the same loudness and lacks dynamic range. I haven't heard many modern rock albums, but I can say that the second album by Led Zeppelin has a dynamic range of DR11. Metal music is what I know the most about, and there is strong evidence that heavy metal can be a highly dynamic genre with lots of variation. A few modern examples would be The Tritonus Bell (2021) by Hooded Menace with a DR value of DR11, and Exul (2023) by Ne Obliviscaris with a DR value of DR9. I think the mixes for The Tritonus Bell and Exul sound excellent, and I recommend giving these albums a listen.I agree that saying everything with a high dynamic range is good and everything with a low dynamic range is bad is vastly oversimplifying a complex process with many variables. One example of an album with a low dynamic range that I've enjoyed is Dehumanization Protocol by Extermination Dismemberment with a DR value of DR4.
Thanks for the note Danny and response by Dan.
DeleteYes, the final DR value whatever it ends up being should be determined by the artist to represent the way they want it to sound. As an audiophile, this is that Source Recording Quality" domain which is determined by the artist and production team. All we can do is either like it or dislike it, buy it or just stream occasionally.
Having said this, I think there are some basic "standards" which most of us can probably agree represents "good enough" fidelity. For me, personally, there are very few albums DR5 or below I would consider sounds good or that I would recommend to others who appreciate sound quality. That "shouty", fatiguing quality isn't what we spent thousands of dollars to reproduce IMO.
I would certainly not recommend everything be DR12-16 - just acoustic, natural recordings, classical, jazz. Pop, rock, hard rock, electronica is likely totally enjoyable at around DR8-10. If the rock band wants to be more dynamic and shoot for >DR10, then I think guys listening to expensive sound systems in rooms with low ambient noise and low reverb time would really appreciate that!
In any event, I think 24-bit hi-res audio is wasted on anything that's less than DR10 (and I think that's probably too flexible!).
Hej Arch,
ReplyDeleteIn my ignorance I thought this loudness lark was a relatively new fad introduced by sound engineers to enhance the listening experience when listening to the radio in the car or on the beach! Making the entire melody listenable over the din of traffic and compensating for often subpar speaker made the tunes easier to hear. Well Wikipedia has enlightened me, and I now know that this started in the forties on seven-inch vinyl intended for use on jukeboxes. The owner would set a predetermined volume on the jukebox and vinyls that were mastered louder would stand out. Because of the limitations of the vinyl format, the ability to manipulate loudness was also limited. “Attempts to achieve extreme loudness could render the medium unplayable. One example was the "hot" master of Led Zeppelin II by mastering engineer Bob Ludwig, whose famously high bass levels caused some cartridges to mistrack; the album was recalled and issued with a softer sound, which became more common. Digital media such as CDs remove these restrictions and as a result, increasing loudness levels have been a more severe issue in the CD era.” - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
Enjoyed the article as always. I hope your trip to Pacific Audio Fest will give you plenty of ear openers!
Cheers Mike
This is interesting. It's the first I've heard about the "hot" master of led zeppelin II. I like the mix of the album.
DeleteHi Dan. Here you go https://www.discogs.com/release/4699428-Led-Zeppelin-Led-Zeppelin-II
DeleteJust want to say thanks Mike,
DeleteWow, wasn't aware of this excessively hot mastered Zeppelin II. Neat. I wonder if that was accurately transferred over to digital with the full dynamics, what kind of peaks and dynamic range we'd be looking at.
Didn't know about the jukeboxes. I wonder did the jukeboxes track any better than our typical turn tables to allow them to withstand the hotter masters?
BTW, PAF was fun even though smaller show. Will talk about that this weekend. 😉
DeleteI've been thinking about high dynamic range audio too, and I reckon it just needs a push from one of the major streaming services to really take off. Imagine if Spotify just gives up its (forever coming soon) lossless pretensions and instead offered up a good selection of songs in all their original/maximum high dynamic range glory, marketed as HDR-Audio or something. Even if it was lossy, a lot of audiophiles would embrace them for it, as I'm sure you'd agree that DR trumps lossless audio most of the time. Spotify would also then have a unique selling point rather than being indistinguishable from the other streaming services. It's a winning strategy, why can't they see that? Someone get this message to the numpties running the show please!
ReplyDeleteNow excuse me while I get back to tearing my hair out in frustration.
Hi Mister MB, I had a similar idea myself. I emailed Spotify, Tidal, and Apple, saying something very similar to your post. Maybe you'll have better luck emailing them than I did.
DeleteI think it's futile to email them, I don't think they care. I mean, when even Apple, with their lofty talk about their Apple Digital Masters music collection being "as the artist and sound engineer intended" and "an important part of the world's historical and cultural record", when Apple don't care enough to correct errors in their front end - with albums categorized incorrectly, artist pages having albums from other artists, and playlists being all over the place - it's pretty clear it's not really important to them and they don't really care. There's not enough money in it for them to make the effort. They threw audiophiles a bone with lossless audio, but it was effortless for them and ultimately meaningless for us. Their priorities are elsewhere. Only newer hit-makers and money-makers get their focus and are treated like royalty, older music is neglected. I've just resorted to buying older physical copies of music, am not holding my breath for high dynamic range audio to be made widely available by the streaming services. It's sad.
Deletehttps://www.apple.com/apple-music/apple-digital-masters/docs/apple-digital-masters.pdf
Alas, you're probably right MB.
DeleteMoney is made with new music and the hit records so Apple, Tidal, Amazon Music, Spotify are probably most interested in battling over the amount of content and the hit records rather than the quality of the content from disgruntled audiophile feedback. Since I like multichannel, Apple Music gets my vote as the most-used but this is still obviously a minority preference among audiophiles.
Maybe guys, it's worth hitting Qobuz? With their presence on the audiophile stage, focus on having many classical and jazz recordings, emphasis on quality from the start, maybe they can differentiate themselves in this way? Perhaps an encouragement to preferentially stream more dynamic versions of older music than later remasters (but provide opportunity for users to choose their preference like in Roon we can identify the "primary" version).
Who knows what kind of licensing agreements there are between the services and the record labels and whether they have easy access to all the remasters over the decades versus being stuck to just the latest (and probably most compressed) master.
Great article, Arch! Full circle indeed, and oh, the irony. On the original mix, Owen Morris was brought it at the last moment because the band felt the original mix was, thin, weak, too clean. So, Morris, “heavily compressed the final mix to an extent he admitted was "more than would normally be considered 'professional'” and thus in 1994 the “loudness war” arguably was born with this album.
ReplyDeleteThe trend for heavily compressed (i.e. crushed) music continued and now in 2024, 30 years later, there it is, a remaster that is going in the right direction (albeit multichannel converted to stereo).
For sure, rock music, pop, etc., use dynamic range compression techniques for the music to "pop." Candy to the ears. But too much “candy” can make you sick. When a song or album is so overly compressed, it just sounds like “noise” to these ears. Hopefully, the trend for slightly less “crushed” music continues.
Keep up the good writings Arch!
Hi Mitchco. I'm hoping if we keep talking about unacceptably "crushed" music, it will eventually be recognized by the music industry. A few posts on a label's Facebook page could be enough for change.
DeleteI am with you Dan! Dynamic Range: No Quiet = No Loud
DeleteThanks Mitch!
DeleteAppreciate the background on Owen Morris' role and the band's decision to do a DR6 album way back in 1994.
About 10 years ago, Bob Katz declared "The loudness wars are over". Sadly I guess it's not quite over. With the loudness normalization, I think your message "No Quiet = No Loud" so "= No Sale" needs to be shouted out among music lovers, spoken of as being an impediment to sales in the head offices of music labels, and maybe whispered in the ears of artists.
I also think given the tech we have these days, we should have a "Loudness" button on all music players (just a virtual button on the screen!) to add compression when listening in the car or in the subway. Dynamic compression IMO should be a choice the listener can choose for him/herself, doesn't have to be a studio decision, right?!
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteArch, totally agree on the "loudness" button. It is already available with compressors/limiter plugins on the music production side in DAW's. So easy enough for a consumer to plugin a compressor/limiter and control the loudness to one's taste or scenario. Nowadays, the tools are so sophisticated there are "pushbutton" presets like Mastering1, Mastering2, where the listener can select which preset and go with the one you like or fine tune the parameters and save as your own preset.
DeleteI used compressors/limiters (and many other DSP tools) daily over 10 years as a pro recording/mixing/live sound engineer. If you have an ear, it does not take long to tune into each compressor parameter like threshold, attack, release, compression ratio, etc. "Transparently" altering the dynamics and used with taste can make the music, like rock, sound punchy and exciting.
It is the overuse that I object to (and I am guilty of it too) as we seem to all have gotten used to highly compressed material, some of it so bad you can hear the "pumping and breathing" of the tools which sucks the life out of the music.
Yah, release music with a DR or 10 or greater and let the listener compress it down if required/desired ;-)
I don't understand the idea that albums are compressed for car journeys. I do a lot of car journeys, and I've never been in a car with speakers good enough for an album's dynamic range to really matter. Personally, I think having a volume normalization option would be better.
DeleteIt's good to see that others are speaking up about the ongoing "loudness wars" in audio. I work with sound levels a lot in the production of a weekly FM radio program, and thus inadvertently see a lot of compression.
ReplyDeleteA band that started out with loads of dynamic range in their recording back in the 1980's, but has devolved into a wall of compression is Metallica.
If you take a copy of any of their past half dozen albums and import them into Audacity (a free // open-source audio editing tool) and then do the same with their early albums such as Kill Em' All or Ride The Lightning, you will see a stark difference between these recordings.
This amazes / confuses me, as they had an overall better sound when they were drunk juvenile delinquents than they have now, as sober multi-millionaires...
I cannot get my mind around why these artists, all very talented and after some 40 years working in studios, very experienced in production, would allow their art to be bastardized like that.
Will be posting on their social media sites this evening...
Thanks for the nudge to do so.
Andrew D.
The Underground Review
CFUZ 92.9FM
Penticton
Great Andrew! Indeed the more voices expressing concern the better...
DeleteOh man, Metallica... I'm reminded of 2008 with Death Magnetic (DR3 I think) and the kerfuffle with unhappy fans about the sound quality. I remember scouring the internet to find the Guitar Hero III rip which was way better with DR12, we can still see the numbers here:
https://dr.loudness-war.info/?artist=&album=death+magnetic
I like the comment that was posted for the GH III rip: "before Rick Rubin wrecked it for good". 🤣
I dunno, sadly maybe the Metallica boys have just gone older and deafer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCase in point: Metallica's latest album: '72 Seasons'. This is a lossless .FLAC file, imported into Audacity. Red represents clipping (!!!)
ReplyDeletehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/12Yu1_tcppKB6KfsBWUJ817YaQOBtAYbe/view?usp=sharing
Simply Wow! And ouch!
DeleteGreat example from an album with average of DR5.
I've just listened to the song '72 Seasons.' The mix is awful; I really don't understand how possibly the most popular and wealthy band in metal has released such a poorly mixed album when they have the means to do better.
DeleteAs far as the Loudness War goes, it's worth reading a couple of articles published in Sound on Sound (a magazine aimed at music producers).
ReplyDeletehttps://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/dynamic-range-loudness-war
The first, from 2011, takes a possibly controversial stand in claiming that while albums are definitely louder there's been little, if any, reduction in the overall loudness variability. Whatever you think of this, Mr Deruty (a music producer working at Sony Computer Science Labs in Paris) does show that a lot of the problem lies in the method used to analyse dynamic range. The conventional "DR Meter" score is simply a ratio of the peak to the level of the 80th percentile and is overly reductionist - he recommends EBU 3342 loudness range analysis instead.
https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/end-loudness-war
The second, from 2014, confidently predicts that the introduction of loudness normalisation in streaming services will cause the end of excessive loudness boosting, but that this will take time to filter through to mastering practices. As you note, this has indeed been the case when it comes to multichannel atmos releases, which may be subject to stricter controls. Unfortunately we're ten years down the line and I'm not sure that has really happened for conventional stereo releases. But it would be interesting to see if a proper analysis of stereo music released over the last decade shows any effect from provider-enforced normalisation.
Personally, I don't think compression, per se, is the real problem. It certainly does change the music, but I think it's legitimate to claim that this is an artistic decision that rightly lies in the ambit of the producers. That doesn't mean that they can't get it wrong on occasion - Emmanuel Deruty points to the remastered version of The Cure's Pornography and gives an example of a section where the use of compression leads to an important change in the pacing of the music, "The loudness variations are now of a very different nature, and that may not be such good idea." The Cure's Disintegration is one of my favourite albums, and I know the original release intimately - I've tried listening to the remasted 'Deluxe' version and find it infuriating precisely because the expected pacing is subtly, yet critically, different. But I have to admit that 'different' isn't _necessarily_ the same as 'bad'.
What IS bad, though, is clipping. Releasing a 16/44.1 track in which the signal clips is simply unforgiveable, and profoundly unprofessional (some degree of 'true peak' overflow may be allowable as a good DAC can handle that, but this involves no more than two consecutive 0dBFS samples). Unfortunately here we are in 2024 and we can still point to commercial releases that have been clipped by inept engineers who think they can get away with breaking the rules. It's perfectly possible to compress a signal (even to extreme levels) in ways that do NOT produce clipping. While compression inevitably removes some of the information in the signal, clipping also ADDS high levels of distortion, and you don't need golden ears to hear the grating odd-order screech it produces.
Hi Mr. King, I agree that dynamic range (DR) values aren’t necessarily the core issue. Plenty of albums with low DR values can still sound good. However, I believe DR values serve as a good indicator of how much the mix is "in your face." The problem, I think, in metal music is that many producers and mixers don’t know how to use heavy-handed compression well. I think The Underworld Awaits Us by Nile is a good example of a poor mix.
DeleteGreat discussion Charles and I agree with Dan that there are times when a low DR is fine; for example the compilation by Vini Vici Part Of The Dream which is electronica and has DR4, but sounds punchy and "works" for that kind of music.
DeleteYeah, I wish the 2014 article about the "End of the Loudness War?" were more true a decade later - now.
As for the SoS 2011 article by Emmanuel Deruty, I think this is highly academic and not really meant for mainstream reading. There are some arguments that are about semantics - the term "Loudness Range" for example correlating with "Dynamic Range" yet him not finding it for music analyzed. To me, it just means that what we're hearing and complaining about is not "Loudness Range" per se. (EBU 3342 here)
When talking about "DR" values, the more appropriate term would be "crest factor" (the relative ratio of peak loudness level to RMS average for a certain period of time - how much peak variability do we experience across the music?), but the term "crest factor" doesn't quite roll off the tongue as well and sounds too technical for most non-audio geeks I think.
It's a long article filled with technical terms and graphs and I think the only take away from that 2011 article for the average reader (as opposed to the audio professional) is I think this from the conclusion section:
"To go on with the comparison with images, it's as if, for the last 20 years, all pictures in books and magazines have been getting brighter and brighter. There are still deep blacks, the contrast remains intact, but all images look brighter. This is illustrated with the Tower Bridge pictures on the image. It's as if everything these days is supposed to look 'flashy', even though common sense suggests there are some images that shouldn't look flashy at all, in any situation. This is all the more true in the case of audio content, for which 'brighter' doesn't simply mean a higher density of clearer pixels. It also means reduced crest factor, envelope modifications, use of the second loudness paradigm and, in the worst cases, distortion. Common sense suggests that although there is nothing wrong with these characteristics as such, they shouldn't be on virtually all records."
The problem is, I think Deruty has massively underestimated the severity of the "in the worst cases, distortion" comment. Just have a look at the link from Andrew above of 72 Seasons to get an idea of the true magnitude of clipping and the distortions that come with that in many of these ≤DR5 recordings.
One more thing! If we look at Deruty's graph with the Tower of London and the faded blue/red individual curves, notice how many of the red curves (2007) clip at "0" compared to virtually none of the 1967 (blue) recordings.
DeleteFrom a photography perspective, this is obviously overexposure in the histogram and the bright parts of the image are "blown out" / "blown highlights" which means loss of detail and by definition a form of distortion. Again, the artist is free to desire distortion if they want it to be that way even if it sounds clearly unnatural. As audiophiles, I think we can easily appreciate that unnaturally sounding, clipped, "blown highlight" recordings simply do not need high-fidelity gear to reproduce.
It is a fair point that high dynamic range doesn't necessarily mean better. My main gripe (which I should have clarified before) is with the remastered versions of music, in which they keep chipping away at the dynamic range and making the music louder. In these cases, and just letting my ears be the judge and not mindlessly comparing DR numbers, 99% of the time the remasters sound worse. I've done loads of A/B comparisons of different masters of songs using exactly the same gear, and the remasters always sound worse because of the compression and possibly EQ they've used in remastering. Music which I love and I'm intimately familiar with has been butchered and sounds soulless. In trying to add more life, they've stripped out the soul. On top of which the original, authentic, "as the artist intended" versions aren't available any more! And that makes my blood boil.
DeleteBut newer music, or music I'm not familiar with, I can and do enjoy if it's to my taste, irrespective of the dynamic range, possibly because I don't have a point of reference for that particular song/piece.
But less and less - I have noticed I can't listen to louder, less dynamic music for an extended period of time - I get fatigued quicker. Even at low volumes! Surely such physiological indicators must mean something.
I've emailed Napalm Records about the poorly mixed album Underworld Awaits Us. I just received a response from Napalm Records saying they passed the message on to Nile but didn't take personal responsibility.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone wants to help, email the label and leave a comment on the label's Facebook page and on Nile's Facebook page. Here are the customer service email and Facebook links:
customer.service@napalmrecords.com
https://www.facebook.com/napalmrecords/
https://www.facebook.com/nilecatacombs/