DR ratings: vinyl era vs modern era

All music posts here please.
User avatar
karatestu
Posts: 5945
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 4:40 pm
Location: North Yorkshire
Has thanked: 1865 times
Been thanked: 1378 times
Great Britain

Re: DR ratings: vinyl era vs modern era

Unread post by karatestu »

Lindsayt wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 11:41 am Is there something that can be done to adjust our systems for ubiquitous over compression?

Has anyone tried using an expander in their systems?

Using such a device seems like a poor substitute for not compressing the music in the first place.

I think it's disgusting that we as consumers are not even given the choice of buying non compressed downmix or declipped versions of mainstream new releases.
In this modern IT driven day and age. When music is in digital formats and it would be minimal cost to the Music Industry to offer uncompressed versions.

It's also disappointing that it's an area where so much :Bllocks: is written. For example by clowns saying that the Loudness Wars are over and citing Billie bloody stupidly compressed Eilish as an example of this.

The daft thing is: music sales have been declining. It's impossible to say how much the decline has been driven by over compression.

You'd think the Music Executives would be thinking "We've got to do something to try to reverse this trend. What can we do? I know, how about offering a better quality product? How about offering the consumer more choice? Instead of us only selling what we think they should have."
But oh no, they've got their heads stuck so far up their own arses that they don't have a clue what to do. They just carry on doing things the same as everyone else. Complete and utter fucking morons. :angry-screaming:
No, never thought of using an expander. Downward or upward or both ? Would it degrade SQ in other areas ?
DIY FREE ZONE

User avatar
SteveTheShadow
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 272 times
Been thanked: 339 times
Great Britain

Re: DR ratings: vinyl era vs modern era

Unread post by SteveTheShadow »

@Stu
The 'BBC dip' was a shallow shelf-down in the acoustic output of some BBC-designed speaker systems of the 1960s-1980s in the 1kHz to 4kHz region, exactly where nasties would be most irritating to the ear in a mid forward design.
Re single driver three humps engineering, I put a hump at 70-100Hz by making the Q of my sealed box system around 0.9 and putting my cabs against the wall.
In the end I couldn’t put up with the mid forwardness so I got a decent BBC dip, (but not good enough really) by engineering the speaker grill, with layers of cloth behind it in front of the main whizzer, with an eye cut in the centre to let the HF out from the central HF whizzer.
The HF hump is a consequence of using a single driver, they are all like that with a rising response trend that can be a complete pain in the arse and a deal breaker for some people.
These users thanked the author SteveTheShadow for the post:
karatestu (Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:38 pm)
Somebody’s telling me the latest scandals.
Somebody’s stepping on my plastic sandals. Joe Jackson (1979)

User avatar
Lindsayt
Posts: 4213
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:06 pm
Has thanked: 1079 times
Been thanked: 692 times
Nauru

Re: DR ratings: vinyl era vs modern era

Unread post by Lindsayt »

The sort of systems that I like make the best of a bad job when playing compressed recordings.
For stuff like Billie Eilish you can appreciate that it's good music, recorded with good clarity. Even though it sounds unnatural / strangely artificial / emotionally flat / lacking in dynamic contrast.


When you have a system that's adding its' own dynamic compression on top of the recording's dynamic compression then that tends to result in an especially hollow / flat as a pancake / flat as a witches tit feeling when listening. There are plenty of systems that I've heard that add their own dynamic compression.

It depends what you call top notch money when it comes to vinyl sources. It all depends what deals you come across on eBay or elsewhere. As well as it depending on your willingness to service and fettle turntables like the classic Lenco models.

And yes there is a huge amount of sense in the GIGO philosophy. However, amount spent does not correlate to what's lost in each link in the chain. Especially with digital sources where - from my admittedly limited experience - under £100 is all you need to spend on that part of the system.
And then you can move that on to the pre-amp where stepped attenuators win - in the right kinds of system - and don't cost much relatively speaking.
And then the power amps - where if you have high efficiency speakers - you don't need a lot of power, which again keeps costs down. And besides there are 2nd hand power amps - with some of them at bargain prices for the performance on offer.
These users thanked the author Lindsayt for the post:
karatestu (Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:38 pm)

User avatar
karatestu
Posts: 5945
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 4:40 pm
Location: North Yorkshire
Has thanked: 1865 times
Been thanked: 1378 times
Great Britain

Re: DR ratings: vinyl era vs modern era

Unread post by karatestu »

SteveTheShadow wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:21 pm @Stu
The 'BBC dip' was a shallow shelf-down in the acoustic output of some BBC-designed speaker systems of the 1960s-1980s in the 1kHz to 4kHz region, exactly where nasties would be most irritating to the ear in a mid forward design.
Re single driver three humps engineering, I put a hump at 70-100Hz by making the Q of my sealed box system around 0.9 and putting my cabs against the wall.
In the end I couldn’t put up with the mid forwardness so I got a decent BBC dip, (but not good enough really) by engineering the speaker grill, with layers of cloth behind it in front of the main whizzer, with an eye cut in the centre to let the HF out from the central HF whizzer.
The HF hump is a consequence of using a single driver, they are all like that with a rising response trend that can be a complete pain in the arse and a deal breaker for some people.
Thanks for that. I can't see me being able to dip the 1 to 4 kHz range without putting a shelf filter in and thats against my principles.

Back to your hearing as you get older - I have noticed mid and high starting to grate more over the years. Hopeless situation :crying-yellow:

Sorry, this is off topic :whistle:
These users thanked the author karatestu for the post:
SteveTheShadow (Sun Feb 14, 2021 1:59 pm)
DIY FREE ZONE

User avatar
SteveTheShadow
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:24 pm
Has thanked: 272 times
Been thanked: 339 times
Great Britain

Re: DR ratings: vinyl era vs modern era

Unread post by SteveTheShadow »

Lindsayt wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:31 pm
.....And yes there is a huge amount of sense in the GIGO philosophy. However, amount spent does not correlate to what's lost in each link in the chain. Especially with digital sources where - from my admittedly limited experience - under £100 is all you need to spend on that part of the system.
And then you can move that on to the pre-amp where stepped attenuators win - in the right kinds of system - and don't cost much relatively speaking.
And then the power amps - where if you have high efficiency speakers - you don't need a lot of power, which again keeps costs down. And besides there are 2nd hand power amps - with some of them at bargain prices for the performance on offer.
Yes Lindsay, I don’t dispute the contributions that different components make to the reproduction chain, but there are two devices in a vinyl system that can have a potentially huge influence on the tonal/ frequency balance and they are the cartridge and the speakers, the speakers being the biggest influencer of the lot.
My argument is that it doesn’t matter how highly resolving your system is, if the tonal balance is wrong, in your room then it will dictate what you can play and what you can’t. FR peaks in the BBC dip or presence region to give it a better name, are your mortal enemy and will have a disproportionate influence on what you are ‘allowed’ to listen to: more than a Grado Prestige Black, vs a Benz Gullwing, would, and far more than a carbon track pot vs a stepped attenuator, or a posh phono plug vs a standard one.
Somebody’s telling me the latest scandals.
Somebody’s stepping on my plastic sandals. Joe Jackson (1979)

User avatar
Lindsayt
Posts: 4213
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:06 pm
Has thanked: 1079 times
Been thanked: 692 times
Nauru

Re: DR ratings: vinyl era vs modern era

Unread post by Lindsayt »

I have never in all of my rooms and with all of my systems had a situation where the frequency response has dictated which recordings I wanted to listen to.

Other people may have had such a situation, but I never have.

I've been in a situation where the overall clarity of the system determined that I didn't want to listen to certain albums. Something that I resolved about 12 years ago by getting off the buy brand new from dealers / buy Linn bandwagon.

I have been in the situation where for several years now, I have had no interest in buying modern original musical releases. Because the universal use of over compression has left me unmotivated in consuming these products - when I can instead go through the huge back catalog of less compressed stuff from the 50's to the mid 90's.
These users thanked the author Lindsayt for the post:
TheMarlin (Sun Feb 14, 2021 10:01 pm)

Geoff.R.G
Posts: 1562
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Denham UK
Has thanked: 132 times
Been thanked: 476 times
Great Britain

Re: DR ratings: vinyl era vs modern era

Unread post by Geoff.R.G »

A friend of mine used to run a recording studio and when I bought a compressor for the church sound system his most helpful comment was "if you can hear what it is doing you are using too much". He was absolutely right.

It is worth considering that on vinyl there is likely to be some compression because of the capability of the stylus to track uncompressed grooves. There are/were high dynamic range recordings, I have a couple and they are great but of limited duration because the groove pitch has to be greater. The dynamic range available vinyl is none the less restricted, various sources suggest 60dB

Likewise with tape the dynamic range is restricted by the point at which the tape becomes saturated a dynamic range of 55dB is quoted by several sources.

The theoretical dynamic range for a Red Book CD is 96dB and 24/96 digital audio has a theoretical dynamic range 144dB.

The dynamic range of human hearing is around 140dB though that will depend on age and health.

Clearly the final recording cannot have a greater dynamic range than that of the original recording medium so a CD made from an unprocessed audio tape won't achieve the theoretical maximum of 96dB simply because the tape was limited to around 55dB. The same applies to vinyl, the dynamic range of the original tape will restrict the vinyl to around 55dB. Apply companding to the tape and a wider dynamic range is possible, but that does involve signal processing.

In summary, commercial recordings on anything other than CD will, of necessity, be compressed.

That said, some styles of music are deliberately compressed, by raising the level of the quieter parts rather than by limiting the loud parts, to make the whole thing appear louder. However, the same compression may well be applied to the same music when performed live. Some bands, Bellowhead come to mind, simply do everything really LOUD! What I am saying is that the limitation on dynamic range may not be compression by the mastering engineer but a desire on the part of the performer to be loud.

User avatar
CN211276
Posts: 6523
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2016 9:29 am
Location: Cardiff
Has thanked: 1401 times
Been thanked: 977 times
EUROPEAN_UNION

Re: DR ratings: vinyl era vs modern era

Unread post by CN211276 »

i think the comparitive lack of compression is a reason why I enjoy listening to 70s and 80s music so much. The problems started in the 90s and I believe the cause was CD entering the mainstream. Reproduction on boom boxes became more important than on hifi systems. I do not think the situation is as bad now as it was then, but there is a lot of variation in compression levels between different recordings. What annoys me most was mentioned in the previous post, ie the volume of quiet passages being raised. This really grates me on heavy rock tracks which contain acoustic parts. Much of the impact and excitement which should be there is lost when the band kicks ass. I have also noticed this at live concerts. I think the reason is to improve listening on ear buds in a noisey environment and through a car stereo.
Main System
NVA BMU, P90SA/A80s (latest spec), Cube 1s, TIS, TISC(LS7)
Sonore OpticalRendu, Chord Mscaler & Qutest, Sbooster PSs
Network Acoustics Eno, ifi iPurifier3, AQ JB FMJ, Cisco 2940 & 2960
DH Labs ethernet, BNC & USB cables, Farnells cat 8 ethernet cable

Second System
NVA P20/ A20, Cubettes, LS3, SSP, SC
Sonore MicroRendu, Chord Mojo 2 MCRU PSs, AQ Carbon USB cable & JB FMJ

Headphones
Grado SR325e/Chord Mojo, Beyerdynamic Avetho/AQ DF Colbat

RIP Doc

User avatar
Lindsayt
Posts: 4213
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2012 9:06 pm
Has thanked: 1079 times
Been thanked: 692 times
Nauru

Re: DR ratings: vinyl era vs modern era

Unread post by Lindsayt »

Michael Jackson's Thriller album, on the original vinyl has dynamics that puts almost every 21st century CD that I own to shame.

It's not the format.

It's the long term idiocy of the people working in the Music Biz in the 21st Century.

Returning to the sort of compression levels that we had on 1980's chart topping vinyl LP's would be a HUGE step in the right direction. And there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't happen apart from the stupidity of the people working for the record companies. :angry-steamingears:

All they have to do is start offering 2 versions of the same album. Their stupidly over compressed version. And an uncompressed version - one that hasn't been passed through their compression machine. And then add an appropriate icon / label to each version. EG the DR database DR rating with it being in the appropriate colour. In a similar way to how food is labelled with the ingredients, except in this case it would be a simple label with the DR rating.

Geoff.R.G
Posts: 1562
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 2:46 pm
Location: Denham UK
Has thanked: 132 times
Been thanked: 476 times
Great Britain

Re: DR ratings: vinyl era vs modern era

Unread post by Geoff.R.G »

Lindsayt wrote: Sun Feb 14, 2021 5:39 pm Michael Jackson's Thriller album, on the original vinyl has dynamics that puts almost every 21st century CD that I own to shame.

It's not the format.

It's the long term idiocy of the people working in the Music Biz in the 21st Century.

Returning to the sort of compression levels that we had on 1980's chart topping vinyl LP's would be a HUGE step in the right direction. And there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't happen apart from the stupidity of the people working for the record companies. :angry-steamingears:

All they have to do is start offering 2 versions of the same album. Their stupidly over compressed version. And an uncompressed version - one that hasn't been passed through their compression machine. And then add an appropriate icon / label to each version. EG the DR database DR rating with it being in the appropriate colour. In a similar way to how food is labelled with the ingredients, except in this case it would be a simple label with the DR rating.
I haven't bought a new CD or record for many a year but my wife has bought CDs at folk festivals and they are a variable commodity some have great dynamic range, Ange Hardy for example, her set at Towersey a couple of years back had the best sound I heard at the festival, but her husband, like me, does church sound where loud isn't as important as clear.

I suspect that many a CD has compressed dynamic range because very few people have the opportunity to exploit the full dynamic range at home except through headphones. I thoroughly enjoyed giving the newly installed church FOH speakers a work out a couple of weeks ago with some Troy Donockley rather louder than I would be able to use at home. His Finlandia on the Uilleann pipes was very enjoyable. I only had 150W per channel but good PA speakers are more efficient than most Hi-Fi speakers.

I would be interested in having the option of buying wide dynamic range recordings.
These users thanked the author Geoff.R.G for the post:
Lindsayt (Sun Feb 13, 2022 10:07 pm)

Post Reply