Loudness War

Mapman says;
'By the way, a lot of newer "loud" recorded CDs will cream lesser audio systems not capable of delivering the goods to an audiophile's ears. In some cases, I believe the shortcoming is in the audio systems ability to deliver the "loud" dynamics present without distortion, not an inherent shortcoming with the recording itself.'

The only correction/alteration I would give is to substitute 'In some cases' to 'In ALL cases'.

TRUE.
If your speakers are up to scratch then everything will sound at a minimum musical and enjoyable.
I was of the opinion many years ago that the cd was the issue, now I have seen the light and view the opposite to be true, after I visited a well respected hi-fi reviewer in the UK and heard his gear. Hearing WAS believing, nothing played sounded bad.

Gawdbless and Mapman,

It is not the dynamics on the "loud" CD that is the problem. It is the complete lack of dynamics. In order to remove the dynamics of natural sounds it requires heavy manipulation to flatten the waveforms. As you flatten a waveform it eventually loses the sinusoidal shape and becomes square. A square waveform representation of an original smooth sinusoid is made up of many odd harmonics - all of which is distortion.

If you have a system that is forgiving (unable to handle transients and reproduce the square waveform accurately) then it will indeed improve the sound as this will reduce some of the higher odd harmonics. Another trick is to have a recessed midrange as the midrange is where our hearing is very sensitive - a laid back midrange will also improve the sound of distorted "loud" CD's.

On the flip side - if you play the Sheffield Labs Drum track CD (oodles of dynamic range) or any of the higher quality jazz, classical and much of the 80's pop/rock recordings then it will sound most realistic on an accurate system that is not forgiving.

The points you make are quite valid though and pose a dilemma. Do you need two systems - one for the loudness war CD's and one for the audiophile (jazz and classical) CD's or do you try to find something in between (a compromise). Another solution is to go to Vinyl - as the physical analog medium of Vinyl (or analog tape) simply cannot produce a square wave as ruthlessly as digital can - so "loudness wars" are inherently less of a problem on Vinyl.

I own "revival" by Fogerty. It is a good album, very clear,detailed sounding. However, compression was defintely used as it is recorded pretty loud. Not as loud as some though. Compression is raising the volume of softer parts of songs to the same or close to the same volume as the loudest parts. The lack of "dynamic" change in volume between the soft and loud parts is what is termed lack of dynamics. Music heard live has these dynamic changes and it's absence is unnatural. The fact that a recording sounds loud usually means a lack of natural dynamic change. Reading this thread there seemed to be some confusion, if not, sorry.

Wildoats,

I agree with what you say about Revival. IT is recorded relatively "loud" as a whole.

However, the percussion and drums as I recall are not just loud, but have the sound of real drums more so than many other recordings I hear also recorded loud overall.

I think what is happening is that modern day digital recording and mastering techniques and tools provide a lot of flexibility in how dynamics are represented. The tendency is for the recording to be louder overall on the average, yet dynamic range is still targeted or applied selectively, for example to make a drum sound more real.

A similar process I am familiar with from digital image processing, an enhancement called contrast stretching, where contrast (or visual dynamic range) is adjusted based upon the actual image content, so that the contrast available overall delivers information in that particular image better than might be possible otherwise naturally.

There are many kinds of targeted linear and non-linear range stretches possible. They can be applied objectively or subjectively. The result is generally a rendering that transmits the more interesting parts better at the expense of the less interesting parts. The result is not natural looking (or sounding) but can convery more information to the end consumer in the end if done well, for example, making those drms sound real with out one having to crank up the volume as far.

PUrists hate anything artificial or not real sounding but hey, most studio recordings are that way anyhow. Modern digital technology just provides a greater set of tools for producers to apply, for better or for worse.

In the end, I think the good producers will produce a product that can get it right for the largest possible target audience, which nowadays is, unfortunately for audiophiles, ipods and mp3 players, etc. Some may be audiophiles/purists and produce things more accordingly.

Take a modern amplified live rock concert also. You hear what the guys running the sound and mixing board think you should hear. there is not much sound until amplified and mixed.

Live acoustic or classical concerts are more often different. You are more likely still to just hear the "real" sound of those acoustic instruments, amplifiers and mixers are not as commonly applied (I think).

"Oh the times, they are a changing' indeed!

You are serious about your music Mapman. Thats great. My point though is dynamics. Of course, some parts sound correct, drums etc. The point is the soft and loud parts are squashed together rendering the DIFFERENCE in volume non existent. Not like real music