June 2006 Connoisseur CDs

[couw]

...Just listen to his Lou Donaldson Mosaic set; "Caravan" on that set is a case in point, it's been compressed/maximized like hell and sounds absolutely awful, bright, LOUD and no dynamics. You should see the sound wave... (Unfortunately, I can't reproduce that here).

I can!

(the cut off corresponds to ~0dB, the RED zone we were taught the tape deck meter should not linger)

Edited July 11, 2007 by couw

[J.A.W.]

...Just listen to his Lou Donaldson Mosaic set; "Caravan" on that set is a case in point, it's been compressed/maximized like hell and sounds absolutely awful, bright, LOUD and no dynamics. You should see the sound wave... (Unfortunately, I can't reproduce that here).

I can!

(the cut off corresponds to ~0dB, the RED zone we were taught the tape deck meter should not linger)

Thanks John, it perfectly illustrates what I mean.

[Shawn]

You can't compare digital audio meters to analog meters (like a cassette deck). In digital land, there is nothing above 0 VU, if you go over 0 you're into digital distortion land. Even with the waveform being compressed as hell...as long as it doesn't go over 0 then it's fine. When mastering you use a digital limiter that won't allow any peaks to get that high (or normalize, whatever the preference).

That waveform looks exactly like I would expect a modern CD to look.

[couw]

That waveform looks exactly like I would expect a modern CD to look.

actually, that is exactly what a modern CD looks like. Problem is that it sez Britney Aguillera and that it is made for little girls with boom boxes who are listening while crying in their root beer over the first lost love of their life and pimples. There may not be any digital distortion, but there is hardly any dynamics. It's either loud or *real* loud all over the band from bass to treble all of the time. Of course you will hear some details you weren't able to hear on those nice fluffy discs from earlier days, simply because stuff is loud. But it is really very fatiguing to listen to. The loud peaks are not as loud anymore (relatively speaking) as they have had their guts limited out of them. If you look at the same wave form taken from the TOCJ, there is a lot of space all around, lots of dynamics, neat spikes and nice low volume passages. This extreme compression business is not good for the sound, bad for enjoyment and likely worse for your ears.

To each his own of course.

Edited July 11, 2007 by couw

[RDK]

That waveform looks exactly like I would expect a modern CD to look.

actually, that is exactly what a modern CD looks like. Problem is that it sez Britney Aguillera and that it is made for little girls with boom boxes who are listening while crying in their root beer over the first lost love of their life and pimples. There may not be any digital distortion, but there is hardly any dynamics. It's either loud or *real* loud all over the band from bass to treble all of the time. Of course you will hear some details you weren't able to hear on those nice fluffy discs from earlier days, simply because stuff is loud. But it is really very fatiguing to listen to. The loud peaks are not as loud anymore (relatively speaking) as they have had their guts limited out of them. If you look at the same wave form taken from the TOCJ, there is a lot of space all around, lots of dynamics, neat spikes and nice low volume passages. This extreme compression business is not good for the sound, bad for enjoyment and likely worse for your ears.

To each his own of course.

Agree completely, John!

This especially pisses me off when it comes from Mosaic. Now i don't necessarily expect "audiophile" mastering from them, but you'd think they'd be a bit more respectful to the source and not have to smash the dynamics of the music to appeal to boom box-listening teens. I can understand why the latest U2 album is compressed, but acoustic jazz shouldn't be.

[J.A.W.]

That waveform looks exactly like I would expect a modern CD to look.

actually, that is exactly what a modern CD looks like. Problem is that it sez Britney Aguillera and that it is made for little girls with boom boxes who are listening while crying in their root beer over the first lost love of their life and pimples. There may not be any digital distortion, but there is hardly any dynamics. It's either loud or *real* loud all over the band from bass to treble all of the time. Of course you will hear some details you weren't able to hear on those nice fluffy discs from earlier days, simply because stuff is loud. But it is really very fatiguing to listen to. The loud peaks are not as loud anymore (relatively speaking) as they have had their guts limited out of them. If you look at the same wave form taken from the TOCJ, there is a lot of space all around, lots of dynamics, neat spikes and nice low volume passages. This extreme compression business is not good for the sound, bad for enjoyment and likely worse for your ears.

To each his own of course.

Agree completely, John!

This especially pisses me off when it comes from Mosaic. Now i don't necessarily expect "audiophile" mastering from them, but you'd think they'd be a bit more respectful to the source and not have to smash the dynamics of the music to appeal to boom box-listening teens. I can understand why the latest U2 album is compressed, but acoustic jazz shouldn't be.

Fortunately, Malcolm Addey's Mosaic masterings are usually excellent. And not all of Ron McMaster's Mosaic masterings are this bad, some of them are OK.

[couw]

Fortunately, Malcolm Addey's Mosaic masterings are usually excellent. And not all of Ron McMaster's Mosaic masterings are this bad, some of them are OK.

yes, and I believe I read somewhere that the Donaldson source material wasn't too spiffy to begin with.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

...Just listen to his Lou Donaldson Mosaic set; "Caravan" on that set is a case in point, it's been compressed/maximized like hell and sounds absolutely awful, bright, LOUD and no dynamics. You should see the sound wave... (Unfortunately, I can't reproduce that here).

I can!

(the cut off corresponds to ~0dB, the RED zone we were taught the tape deck meter should not linger)

I sent a copy of this plot to Ron to get his opinion of it. He's been pretty responsive in the past. I'll let you know if I hear from him.

BTW, I've let him know in the past when people have complained about some of his remastering work and this is one of the first times that I was able to show him what you guys were hearing.

Kevin

[Shawn]

By the way...I'm not "for" compressing the shit out of stuff...I prefer "maximum peak value" normalization and that leaves you the original depth of the recording.

Blame the Online music stores...lots of complaints were sent to the labels about CD levels not being consistent enough in their digital content. At least I think that's part of the reason.

Nothing sounds worse than compressed Classical music...that drives me INSANE!

[J.A.W.]

Nothing sounds worse than compressed Classical music...that drives me INSANE!

I hate compression in all kinds of music, but you're right, classical suffers especially badly from it - jazz too, by the way.

[Jazzdog]

actually, that is exactly what a modern CD looks like. Problem is that it sez Britney Aguillera and that it is made for little girls with boom boxes who are listening while crying in their root beer over the first lost love of their life and pimples.

Man, if Frank Zappa had produced Freak out in 2006 instead of 1966, something resembling this statement might have been printed on the inside sleeve.

[J.A.W.]

actually, that is exactly what a modern CD looks like. Problem is that it sez Britney Aguillera and that it is made for little girls with boom boxes who are listening while crying in their root beer over the first lost love of their life and pimples.

Man, if Frank Zappa had produced Freak out in 2006 instead of 1966, something resembling this statement might have been printed on the inside sleeve.

Couw's collected works promise to be a great read

[Chuck Nessa]

I hate compression in all kinds of music, but you're right, classical suffers especially badly from it - jazz too, by the way.

Sometimes compression is a good thing. Sometimes it is the best way to represent the artist's "vision". All recorded music is "about" illusions.

[J.A.W.]

I hate compression in all kinds of music, but you're right, classical suffers especially badly from it - jazz too, by the way.

Sometimes compression is a good thing. Sometimes it is the best way to represent the artist's "vision". All recorded music is "about" illusions.

Well, maybe I'm narrow-minded, but compression is never a good thing in my book. To my ears it makes the music sound rotten, whether it's intentional or not. And who decides if it's the best way to represent the artist's vision? The engineer, the producer or the artist?

[Chuck Nessa]

I suggest you probably listen to a bunch of compression and like what you hear.

[J.A.W.]

I suggest you probably listen to a bunch of compression and like what you hear.

Please explain.

[Chuck Nessa]

I suggest you probably listen to a bunch of compression and like what you hear.

Please explain.

I am simply saying no listener knows what manipulations they are hearing. You don't necessarily know if compression or any number of audio "tricks" are between your ears and the "product". I use compression, No-Noise, Cedar, and a huge array of other processors to deliver music to the "consumer". If is done very well when folks don't notice.

[Chuck Nessa]

As a producer I've been ripped for doing nothing to fix the sound, for using Cedar or NoNoise and everything in between. None of the accusations were correct about the tools used, btw. I use all tools available and think my choices make my projects better. I have worked on a project and tried all the stuff in the studio, sent the tape to Cedar for an exampe of what they could do and tried NoNoise. After all this I was ripped for not paying for decent restoration. Could something I did 10 years ago sound better? Sure. I'm just really tired of people ripping stuff without considering the details or really understanding the tools. All these things are just tools and it depends on the craftsman controlling the tools.

[J.A.W.]

I suggest you probably listen to a bunch of compression and like what you hear.

Please explain.

I am simply saying no listener knows what manipulations they are hearing. You don't necessarily know if compression or any number of audio "tricks" are between your ears and the "product". I use compression, No-Noise, Cedar, and a huge array of other processors to deliver music to the "consumer". If is done very well when folks don't notice.

I don't think you can say that (people not noticing). Compression and noise reduction alter the sound; apart from reducing dynamics, compression often makes bass and other instruments sound weird, while noise reduction kind of strangles the higher frequencies in a way that I can't describe very well in English. I can assure you that it's noticeable on good systems. I'm not saying that I'm not listening to processed music anymore, I just don't like (OK, I said "hate") what's been done to it. And if music is heavily processed like in the "Caravan" example above, it does make it unlistenable, at least to me.

[Chuck Nessa]

And if music is heavily processed like in the "Caravan" example above, it does make it unlistenable, at least to me.

Hey, I never heard the Donaldson box - it could be shit. I don't care since I didn't need to buy it. That does not have anything to do with my comments.

Nomatter how bad the mastering is, "unlistenable" is just silly.

[J.A.W.]

And if music is heavily processed like in the "Caravan" example above, it does make it unlistenable, at least to me.

Hey, I never heard the Donaldson box - it could be shit. I don't care since I didn't need to buy it. That does not have anything to do with my comments.

I was merely using it as an example, to illustrate my point. No need to get defensive.

Nomatter how bad the mastering is, "unlistenable" is just silly.

Silly? I said it's unlistenable "at least to me". I think it's up to me, not you to decide whether I find something unlistenable or not. You may find it silly, well, that's your problem. If this is the way you want to discuss this, be my guest, but I'm off to bed.

Edited April 6, 2006 by J.A.W.

[Chuck Nessa]

I just don't understand how mastering "techniques" (good or bad) trump music.

Music is the ultimate issue, not engineering.

[Chuck Nessa]

Sweet dreams Hans.

[J.A.W.]

I just don't understand how mastering "techniques" (good or bad) trump music.

Mastering techniques can manipulate music in such a way that it becomes unlistenable for someone. Oh well, I don't seem to be able to make clear what I mean, so I'll stop trying...

Music is the ultimate issue, not engineering.

True, so why not leave it alone.

Edited April 6, 2006 by J.A.W.

[Chuck Nessa]

Music is the ultimate issue, not engineering.

True, so why not leave it alone.

No mastering engineer (lp or cd) can afford to "leave it alone" since the recording engineer didn't. Choices are made ALL the time. You seem to be a big fan of Hoffman - he doesn't "leave it alone".

Every person in the "illusion" chain has their own needs and agendas.