Hello to all... Am wondering how other audiophile folks who critically listen to music as coordinated recorded sounds access the newest offering from Taylor Swift.
PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT IF YOU HAVE NOT YET HEARD THE CD IN ITS ENTIRETY. AND PLEASE LIMIT COMMENTS WITH REGARDS TO SOUND - NOT ALL THE OTHER STUFF (looks, dating, etc)
I find the recording fairly well done: abit thumpy throughout (which seems to be the trend in pop/indie music for the masses), but highly divergent in tones, dynamics, and harmonies. Deep and wide soundstage... Most vocals (within my system) are believeable (for the most part) but sometimes muddy up at the complicated refrains with several overdubs of her voice...
I think this is a good stereo test recording. YOUR THOUGHTS APPRECIATED...
Again, I don't see what a full range dynamic system can do to help recordings with a DR of 5.
I'd guess the distortion you're hearing in the Swift CD is from clipping because of the DR compression.
I agree completely that DR isn't everything and a recording with high DR doesn't mean that it has good SQ or is well produced. But it seems that it would be an impressive feat to produce a quality recording with low DR.
I don't give much for the DR. A lot of the high DR:s sounds crap. It's just one of several important factors. The OP asked for our SQ thoughts on Taylor Swifts new CD. I'm sorry she left the country music. She's talented. The CD sounds ok. It's very clean. Her voice is well recorded and in some tracks also very close. It's when some the songs are becoming loud the problems arise with - in my ears- distortion. Probably because of a lot of processing and compression. But really most of it is quite enjoyable - if you like the music and have the right full-range dynamic system for playing this kind of music. I suppose Harbeth won't do very well :-)
Nice. There were other good versions on the list but always good to see that someone still knows how to do it.
Which makes me wonder if someone could make money re-engineering new music for audiophiles? I can't see that it would cost the artists anything. It might not make them much additional income but it wouldn't hurt. I'm guessing the engineer might not make much either which would be the limiting factor.
But wouldn't it be great if there was an MSFL type organization/company that remastered hot new music to audiophile standards! I'd pay extra in a heart beat.
Most newer "improved" pop/rock remasters on CD are mastered louder than the originals. So which approach in general is better? You would think the answer is obvious. The thing is when people shell out more money for the same stuff, they want to hear a noticeable difference and radical digital remastering in various forms is a means to that end. Beyond just being mixed louder usually, you often just might hear things you may not have heard before.
I think when you look at the perceived decline in the hi-fi/audiophile hobby (if there is a decline, I just hear people talking about it) then I think you would have to add the loudness wars as one of the coffin nails. I like older rock music and like finding old stuff I've never heard but for my interests to stay keen I like an infusion of new stuff too. If the new stuff, even if well written and well performed, is of low SQ....why bother?
The only way to get vinyl or CDs with minimal DR (higher numbers) is to buy the original issues. Something that I have been doing for a while. Regarding new music, there's no getting around the high compression.
Exactly! That’s the trouble. There aren’t enough CDs with great dynamic range. Hel-loo! Life is too short to listen to modest recordings. The reason so many reissued/remastered CDs show up at yard sales, flea markets is because they suck. I look for average DR of 15 or 16. Remember it’s logarithmic.
What you want is in the limo. What you get is no tomorrow.
Agree with you. However, I don't find too many CDs with average DR above 14 and I usually find 12 and up okay for me.
I would also point out that even a lot of hi-res downloadable files are victims of the loudness wars. They may not be compressed from a data standpoint but they are from a DR standpoint. This is a generalization, of course, but it is not safe to assume that because it is on Tidal or one of the hi-res file purchase sites that it does not have DR compression.
The whole reason for aggressive compression is to be able boost the level. Those aggregious CDs, downloads or LPs are *already loud*. But they don’t have dynamics.That’s why they call it the Loudness Wars. *Turning up the volume doesn’t help dynamics.* You can’t fool Mother Nature. It still sounds stupid. Hel-loo! As I keep saying, if it doesn’t have dynamics it ain’t music! I refuse to listen to it. But feel free to knock yourself out. 10 is not really acceptable in my book. It’s logarithmic, remember. What you want is up around 14 and above. Those are good numbers. Ten is barely acceptable. And when ten is average that means much of the recording is unacceptable.
@mapman , the average DR of 10 is for vinyl and I agree with you that it's better than most digital files which are pressed to vinyl. The CD and download (itunes mp4) measures an average of 6. This digital file is what most of this demographic will be listening to. This is the issue that the article addresses; other genres besides pop music get the same treatment and that's the problem.
I also agree with your point about some highly compressed heavy metal sounding acceptable. The difference may be that pop music is a mix of electronic effects layered throughout. Metal is well mic'd musicians recorded and mixed using standard industry techniques.
Just in my very brief experience I have found that 9 and up (on the scale used by the dr-loudness wars site) seems pretty good. Some of the albums I've cited hover around 6 or 7 and even to my untrained ears it sounds unpleasant and seems impossible to find that just right volume level.
Actually the average dynamic range measure of 10 for that recording is better than average. Regardless, no one measure including dynamic range alone is a reliable indictor of whether a recording will sound good to someone or not. I’ve heard some metal recordings on the very low end of that scale like the CD release of Death Magnetic by Metallica that deliver quite well for The genre but only if the system is up to snuff and can play loud without clipping and adding distortion.
Agreed. And as a new audiophile you begin to experience this through different formats. I've ALWAYS been a music lover. As in sit down and listen to music and do nothing else for extended periods.
But in the last 10 years or so that has meant iTunes on a low end (but pretty darn good) system.
Hearing good songs that are well produced and uncompressed (from a digital file standpoint) is a revelation in itself. Hearing them on a decent system (who can define that?) is another revelation. The good part is that you get a whole new level of enjoyment.
The downside is that you can become less tolerant of less-than-hi-fi sound.
I still don't mind pop music in my car or wherever I'm in the mood for it even if it is lo-fi.
Also agree not to get bothered by other people's taste in music and how they feel about yours. Those of us who get real serious about our rock music can easily be reminded that even at its best it is relatively low brow compared to Bach, Beethoven and Brahms.
Great to see others answered your questions so well.
Regarding if the music on this forum is too high brow, I would hope not. There are very few of us who don’t have recording that touch our hearts, or move our butts that are on the poor side of the loudness wars. Enjoy what you enjoy and post about what you enjoy, and take the criticism for what it is, another mans opinion.
However, It would help you understand what good sound is to listen to recordings that are well recorded, so you will know when a song is recorded well or you just enjoy it.
Remember we audiophiles care about sound and music, so have a little patience with us.
@greg22lz , these posts may seem pedantic or oddball but you’ve been here a long time. I think we have a new generation of members, some who are experienced audiophiles and others who love music and want to build a system and join this hobby.
When I see an "oddball" post I check the date the OP joined. There’s a very high number who have joined in the last year...IMO, a great thing. This OP has another thread in which he asks for recommendations of high quality recordings to test a system. That sounds like somebody who’s pretty new to high-end audio.
Based on the DR scale, the recording in question is as bad as it can possibly get and is high on the unlistenable scale. The advice the OP should receive is the explanation of the recording process, compression, and the Loudness Wars.
Thank you n80 for your explaination of acman3 post about the DR site. For some reason: the acman3 post showed up after my post questioning it (look at the times: acman3 at 2:26 and my post at 3:27).
greg22lz: Confused by your post; not sorry if I seem pedatic to you. My title for the forum is pretty direct and I ask because I'd like to know, not annoy you...
My topic is under the MUSIC FORUM; I am not an audiophile, I am a music lover. Maybe I shouldn't be posting here, maybe this is too sophisticated a site, maybe too high-brow - or maybe you should be blowing your steam off in some other forum, or on some site designed for that purpose...
I am honestly wondering where all of these oddball posts are being generated. I have been a member for quite a while and I don't recall seeing so many pedantic posts. It is as if there is a "hired staff" with little knowledge of audio to generate posts, thereby generating interest in Audiogon. Frankly these seem fake and rather pointless, not trying to be offensive here and I am sorry if I am but has anybody noticed this phenomenon ? Even the post headlines are very odd. Something like "HAVE YOU EVER NOTICED..." , or "WHEN I TURNED OFF MY AMP SOMETHING WENT WRONG...." This is just weird and very uninviting. Make a header that says something. Make some sense please!
He is referring to the dynamic range of the CD. As I understand it the dynamic range is the range of audible sound or tone from quietest to loudest. (Probably all the wrong terms but you can get what I'm saying).
The CD you referenced has very poor dynamic range. This is a product, again as I understand it, of pushing up the loudness of the CD which compresses the dynamic range.
This isn't a knock against Taylor Swift or that CD per se because the problem is almost universal these days. It is very hard to find a new CD or downloadable file that doesn't suffer from this production technique.
Search Wikipedia: "loudness wars" if you want to learn a little more.
What I hear in these compressed CDs, compared to older ones, is that first it is loud. Too loud for the corresponding volume setting on your gear. After that to me they sound too bright, too strident and they make my ears tired. They lack 'richness' in my opinion. Some of my favorite new bands have albums with nearly identical DR to the Swift CD you mention. Their DR hovers around 5 or 6. Well recorded CDs like Mark Knopfler's 'Tracker" and Steely Dan's 'Two Against Nature' have DR values in the 12-16 range. And they are fairly recent. They just made the effort.
I'm sure I haven't laid this out exactly or with the most precise terms but the effect is fairly obvious to me sonically.
New vinyl seems to fair better....but still not as good as good old vinyl.
Also, the DR can vary A LOT between different CDs of the same album when it comes to older CDs and "remastered" CDs notoriously have worse DR than the original releases.
Please explain to me in layman's terms what this tells me, and how this is useful in a discussion regarding sound... This may sound combative - it is not intended to be - I just want to understand why you are using this 'scale' to quantify sound...
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
