2. music
  3. 138976-115924

The future of new music.......

I recently posted about my disappointment with the SQ of both of Alabama Shakes’ albums. The CDs have shockingly poor dynamic range and outrageous loudness. The HD Tracks versions are similar. Simply unpleasant to listen too. I can tweak them with the equalizer in iTunes (!) and improve things a little. The vinyl is slightly better but does not appear to be worth the foray into high end vinyl playback.

I like my old rock but still like to find and enjoy new music.

But when I do research into new acts I am finding the same problems that I did with Alabama Shakes. No quality recordings. Period. Some point to vinyl but as with Alabama Shakes the vinyl might be marginally better but with some bands it is no better at all. And as pointed out above the HD Tracks are just like the CDs.....high res poor recordings.

I have found this to be true for great new(ish) rock acts like The Struts, Gary Clark, Jr. and Tedeschi Trucks. No good recordings. Same with Neko Case....but she is not so new.

I’m assuming this is because there is just no demand for hi-fi level recordings these days? Does it really cost that much more to produce a CD/file/record with high dynamic range and modest loudness?

I’ve seen threads here that suggest that hi-fi is dying out because younger folks just don’t get it (ear buds and Spotify are enough for them). But if new music is being recorded/produced/out put at such low quality that just seems like another nail in the coffin.

A question: Since I can tweak some of this music in a crude equalizer like the one in iTunes, is there a better, higher end way of doing the same thing with an external or other software based tool?


n80
cd318
2,636 posts
 
@n80, you might find some good information here,

http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/forums/music-corner.2/

although sometimes you may need to wade though pages and pages.. eg the Beatles discussions have gone on for almost 2 decades (without much consensus).

On the other hand it did lead me to picking up 'Get Happy’ on CD by Elvis Costello and the Attractions on Demon. Finally, a digital version that bears comparison with the original UK vinyl.
twoleftears's avatar
twoleftears
5,315 posts
 
So maybe I’m confused. If the dynamic range of a recording is low how can anything in the playback chain make that dynamic range larger?

It's not the level of the dynamic range (high, low), it's the variation within it(narrow, wide range).

Not sure what you mean by "low" and "larger".

n80 OP
2,116 posts
 
By 'low' I mean narrow and by 'larger' I mean wider. It seems to me those are the same things. 

And since it is a 'range' i.e. a ratio of highest to lowest detectable sounds (or maybe it is frequencies) then a 'level' of that range is not any different from "the variation within" it. If a recording has a range of 1 - 5 detectable signals then that is a 'low' or 'narrow' range. If a recording has a range of 1-15 detectable signals then is has a 'larger' dynamic range.

Maybe my terms are not those used regularly by those in the know but they mean the exact same thing.

After doing a good bit of reading on this matter I'm not surprised I'm confused (or that others are as well) since even top level sound engineers quibble about definitions, how to measure DR and the significance of those findings.

However, it remains self evident to me that a narrow dynamic range is going to yield less definition and richness. This is very evident when one compares recordings.
More to discover