I apologise if a similar thread has been done before but how comes most digtal hi res stereo mixes are still being released compressed?

[KG10]

While I understand that they were made with lossy streaming in mind, The vinyl versions often seem get more dynamic mastering so it leaves me wondering why the same couldn't be done for the lossless hi res versions or at least make use of the vinyl masters for those.

 

[par4ken]

I agree, you echo what I've been saying in many posts. It comes down to the damn loudness war. For some reason many producers and artists want their product to sound louder than everyone else. In the process they squash the life out of their recordings. Such new releases and rematers become fatiguing and even painful to listen to.

I don't think that brickwall mastering should ever be used but it is a complete sham to find it done on so called hi res versions. I was shocked to see the HDtracks version of The Rolling "Stones Sticky Fingers" had a DR value of only 7. The vinyl album and at least some of the CD releases have a more normal value of about 12!

 

[KG10]

It comes down to the damn loudness war.

Didn't think that would really still be a thing today to be honest.

Although to be honest I doubt it isn't as bad as it was in its prime.

 

[jimfisheye]

The only two explanations I can think of:
1. Intentional 'novelty' release with intentional damage to set up for an "improved" remaster down the road.
2. Incompetence.

Giving people and the industry the benefit of the doubt (ie. not wanting to suggest incompetence) leads me to #1. Not wanting to sound crazy conspiratorial suggests #2. I dunno.

 

[AYanguas]

IMHO, the majority of consumers, who the music business is primarily aimed at, don't care. The compression can even be better when listening with headphones, from a cell phone, in a noisy environment.

We, consumers who really care about the problem are a minority, and the pressure against loudness war is minimal.

The uncompressed editions, Blu-ray editions, and some Hi-Res downloads are exclusively aimed at that minority... to keep us happy as a new variant of "bread and circuses".

Another explanation I think of is that the musical industry could be looking for new hipster consumer, selling "better quality" Hi-res editions that are really aimed to that people that listen from mobile headphones at the street or swiming pool, to whom loud music at a good volume sounds very good.

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

I think there has to be a distinction.

Compression is a wonderful useful tool. It should not be used as an overall slur for what people might be referring to - brickwall LIMITING to create more loudness.

Compression can be used for incredible more powerful effect, and at times deliberately used to reduce the dynamic range - in order to alter the way something sounds and how you hear it.

This Tommy Bolin track was from the very first album I mixed 48 years ago. We deliberately put the whole mix through a compressor called a ‘GainBrain’ to create a very particular sound. Nothing to do with loudness, we had no idea what that meant back then. It was all about squashing the sounds on purpose.



I used the same technique back then on a track or two for Bruford - and when that album was recently remixed (not by me!) they came across as very strange and weak without that intentional power.

Another interesting point. I was temporarily living in America when Pink Floyd’s 'The Wall' was released in 1979. I was living in Chicago and a local FM radio station decided to play it continuously without any commercials for a full 24 hours nonstop. It sounded absolutely amazing the way they presented it. I had a very powerful and expensive hifi system.

So I went out and bought the LP the very next day. Boy was I disappointed at how weak and middle-y the whole thing came across on vinyl by comparison.

I think a lot of it is all relative. Yes, loudness wars which started so much with radio and streaming have made a lot of music suffer.

But don’t just make it sound like compression is a negative thing. Yes - maybe comparisons between originals and remasters can be an interesting dilemma - but sometimes a change in attitude for new remixes might be a deliberate decision.

Just my thoughts!! SWTx

 

[marpow]

I agree with Stephen's sentiments above they are similar to mine.
I don't think I will ever be good at hearing all the stuff that comes out in music like some of the other QQ members, but I sort of try.
I listen to a lot of rock music and new CD's, or CD's in box sets that have a Dynamic Range in the 5's and 6's do not sound that good on the home rig but sound fantastic in the car.
I always rip everything so I just put the files on a thumb drive and listen.
Plus it is impossible to literally listen to everything at home, I do not want to sit in a chair all day every day.
Music good, sounds good even when compressed to below our standards.
I always tell the story, while in Jamaica on vacation, sitting around playing cards, put my iPhone in a bowl, listened to mp3 tunes from my library, and we were all singing and having a good time.
I love the quote from Alan Parsons, "audiophiles don't listen to music they listen to there equipment".

 

[par4ken]

Compression is a wonderful useful tool. It should not be used as an overall slur for what people might be referring to - brickwall LIMITING to create more loudness.

Correct in that compresson has long been used to create a particular sound character. I think of those "homegrown" albums that FM stations were once putting out in the eighties. They seemed to all use the same amount of compression to help give a smoother sound quality. While I do prefer a rougher more dynamic sound I wouldn't necessarily say that the compression ruined the sound of those.

Looking at the MFSL CD release of "The Yes Album" shows a DR value of only 8 but the album sounds fine. If you look at the tracks in an audio editing program there is nothing that looks brickwalled. Analogue compressors don't compress or limit that tightly, brickwalling is a completely artificial effect that has no place in music reproduction!

Vinyl albums and even cassettes made from those albums always sounded great played anywhere on anything.

Music good, sounds good even when compressed to below our standards.

That all depends, I would say that music sounded fine played on the old tube type AM radios. Radio stations had to use compression both to level sound and to prevent overmodulation and interference with other services. In contrast listening to music on an iPhone is downright painful!

I love the quote from Alan Parsons, "audiophiles don't listen to music they listen to there equipment".

I'm quite sure that was a tongue in cheek statement, few people care more about sound quality than he does!

 

[M-K]

Just listening to Black Sabbath's 13 on CD. Great album but no dynamic range. The overall sound lacks of punch, especially the drums. There is no need to compress the music to f***. I know where the volume knob of my amplifier is. And I want to crank it up when I like.

A lot of people like vinyl, and they say that it sounds better. Yes and no. Vinyl (the content of course) has often more dynamic range compared to the CD release because of technical limitations. Different mastering. On the other hand a CD has in theory 96dB, much more than vinyl and its campfire romanticism. But too often unused... Sad.

I own a lot of Pink Floyd CDs (meanwhile much in surround on SACD/BD-A). They always sounded excellent and have high dynamic range.

Yes, Stephen, I agree: compressors are beautiful tools to make your sound. (Ab)using Maximizers just to get it louder than the average that is what I really don't like at all. Most of the remasters have less dynamic range (louder) and a "contemporary" sound than their initial release.

A few have better sound with more DR than their original release: Blackfield, Blackfield II, some Porcupine Tree albums I remember. Steven Wilson got it.

Often I ask myself, why is it not possible to get the vinyl master as CD or digital download? An LP without crackling?

 

[jimfisheye]

I like full blooded rock mixes with heavy compression and full balls out sound! I think we can draw a clear line between that and volume war brick wall limiting and the sometimes 20db treble boosts that come with that territory.

Or... maybe not? I dunno. Click on the limiter/loudness for the car or phone/earbud listening? Yeah, for sure!

See... that should be a button on the car player or the phone app! You don't release an album pre-blasticated for car stereos! Do we release black and white versions of movies for people with b&w TVs and just too bad for everyone with color? (Too old?) Do we release movies in 360p on bluray because some people have older computers? And just too bad for anyone with better?

Should be a button. Remember loudness buttons? That was smiley face eq. Why not make the 'new' loudness button an L2? Could even make two settings: +6db = loud, +18db = WAR!
But... no buttons. At least leave the bluray alone if you go after the CD editions. Sometimes that's happily the case. Not every time though.

There's this one trick mastering engineers don't want you to know: Your volume control! The bright and blasted out stuff sounds thin and puny next to a nominal copy. The opposite of powerful!

Considering the comment that maybe this happens just because no one complains? I can easily believe that not enough people complain and are easy to please! Doesn't that still fall under my #2 above? Getting away with incompetence just because no one called it out? That lasts just as long until someone finally does.

"Audiophile" is simply like better seats for a concert to me. I'll enjoy the hell out of a show from the nose bleed seats! Or even an audience bootleg recorded from the nose bleed seats! But yeah, I'll really enjoy front row even more. It's that simple. We can deliver front row experience in 12 channel surround sound now. Why the hell not, right? I don't want to buy a bluray and think I'm being led to my front row seat only to find I was led to the bathroom and I'm hearing the show through 3 walls next to someone puking in the next stall.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

The only two explanations I can think of:
1. Intentional 'novelty' release with intentional damage to set up for an "improved" remaster down the road.
2. Incompetence.

Giving people and the industry the benefit of the doubt (ie. not wanting to suggest incompetence) leads me to #1. Not wanting to sound crazy conspiratorial suggests #2. I dunno.

The thing is that high-rez releases are inherently a novelty. More often than not, they feature the same master as what's available on CD and streaming. Heck, many vinyl releases feature the same master as what's on CD and streaming.

I wouldn't chalk it up to incompetence, per se, because many people buy these high-rez releases regardless of if the mastering is the same. It's honestly easy business to not have to bother paying for additional mastering, but reap the benefits of people buying additional, more expensive formats.

 

[inspclouseau]

I was hoping the dvd-a release of Staind, 14 shades of grey would have sounded at least a little bit better than the original release.. Worst sounding 'hi-rez' disc I own. I never play it.
Just awful~ just complete shit in hi rez..Good 'job'!! The sound wars era sure did f-up a lot of what could have been great releases. To do that was criminal! What moron started this? Lets destroy music!

By the way, I never owned any other version of that record, and ordered the dvd-a within the first month of it's release. I had no idea how screwed up it was. What a disappointment. I sure was looking forward to this. I honestly do not think there is another in recording history THIS BAD! Maybe seriously dosed during mixing recording manu.... We have plenty of recordings that are not very good.. but man! A train wreck!

 

[jimfisheye]

But... ours go to 11!

 

[JulesRules]

Considering the comment that maybe this happens just because no one complains? I can easily believe that not enough people complain and are easy to please!

I think more people notice it than are able to put it into words. I know that was the case with me; I would buy a CD and listen to it once, thinking I quite liked the music but had no desire to hear it again. Older recordings were a different story.

Once I started to go down the sound quality rabbit hole, it all started to make sense and I could draw some clear correlation between DR numbers and my tendency to go back to a CD (or not).

Compressing for phone listening is such a bunch of nonsense - several of the audio players on my phone have DSP effects that can do that job for me.

 

[inspclouseau]

 

[jimfisheye]

I think more people notice it than are able to put it into words. ...

That's a fair point!

It's like live sound. If the sound is dialed up great: This band is great! If the sound is brutal: This band isn't so great!

Audio is subjective even when we know how to put stuff to words! I don't so much disagree with any of the other points brought up. But man o man some of the volume war examples are glaring! Do some of them still sound powerful and maybe even great? Sure... Or at least until ear fatigue sets in!

It's just that we set the bar for sound reproduction to pretty much genuine virtual reality real. About 50 years ago now. I might enjoy seeing a young child's drawing stuck on the fridge but I expect a little more from the high falootin art gallery.

 

[jimfisheye]

The thing is that high-rez releases are OFTEN a novelty. More often than not, they feature the same master as what's available on CD and streaming. Heck, many vinyl releases feature the same master as what's on CD and streaming.

Altered a word on you.
This kind of bait and switch infuriates me and guarantees a return when it happens. Precisely what I mean when I say "novelty release".

Just to be clear though. The volume war stuff goes completely beyond anything to do with formats, high res, lossless vs lossy, or anything else. 320k mp3 still sounds perfect and transparent in the long and short of it with unmolested audio and HD resolution doesn't save volume war mastering even a little bit. 64k mp3? You can still find some novelty mastering that's done more damage. But this does cross a line where all the transients are basically erased and the sound is pretty altered.

 

[Dynamic Editor]

Altered a word on you.
This kind of bait and switch infuriates me and guarantees a return when it happens. Precisely what I mean when I say "novelty release".

Just to be clear though. The volume war stuff goes completely beyond anything to do with formats, high res, lossless vs lossy, or anything else. 320k mp3 still sounds perfect and transparent in the long and short of it with unmolested audio and HD resolution doesn't save volume war mastering even a little bit. 64k mp3? You can still find some novelty mastering that's done more damage. But this does cross a line where all the transients are basically erased and the sound is pretty altered.

Apologies. I should have been more clear. I am referring to the novelty of having audio above CD sample rates and bit depth, which is unnecessary due to the limits of human hearing.

 

[jimfisheye]

Analog low pass eq filters used for anti aliasing filtering can be audible. Just sayin. The gaslighting is the claim of any interest in the area above the range of human hearing. It's a passive wide margin that eliminates the need for anti aliasing filtering. But I digress. And my apologies for twisting your words around for my purposes!

The "novelty" I'm actually talking about is hyped up and slammed stuff being put to HD. Masquerading as audiophile by format choice when 8 bit 32kHz would suffice for a lot of it!

 

[MidiMagic]

Maybe we should have a choice. One copy for serious listening and one for noisy environments.