HiFi Subjectivist ¦ Audio Forum ¦ NVA User Group

PTA have published some excellent stuff this year, their podcasts on mastering are also very good

Dave McNair is a prime example of a brain-washed music biz employee.

He's obsessed by something sounding impressive on a car radio or over a factory or warehouse PA system.
Which equals Loudness Warring it to hell.

He's wrong about Tamla / Motown wall of noise recordings sounding great. They don't. They sound shit compared to how they could have been without compression.

Dynamic compression ALWAYS decreases the emotional impact to my ears when listening at home - in a fairly quiet environment.
Because I have a volume control (most of the time). And I can turn up "quiet" dynamic recordings. And when I do they always have more emotional impact that Loudness Wars recordings for that genre of music.

With modern technology the music biz should at least be offering us a choice:
dynamically compressed
or non dynamically compressed, with clear labels as to which is which.

And leave us to buy the version we'd rather have. I would NEVER buy the more compressed version over the less or non compressed version.

Boosting the recording level of certain instruments makes sense. Live acoustically a bass drum will hit over 100dbs. Very few singers can sing live acoustically at that level. So it's inevetable that certain instruments will need to be boosted in volume relative to others.

I've seen people argue that certain genres of music - eg heavy metal or heavy rock suit being dynamically compressed.
That's bullhsit. I recently bought Grand Funk's 3rd album. OK it has a vintagey sound to it, but the lack of dynamic compression on this album makes it sound so much more emotionally involving and suits the music far better than all those brick-walled heavy rock albums.

Sonically great Talma albums are as rare as rocking horse poo. Fair play to Berry Gordon he knew better than most the key to success was how his records sounded on the radio. I don't suppose he gave a seconds thought about hifi fidelity and why would he ?

Lindsayt wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 4:32 pm

With modern technology the music biz should at least be offering us a choice:
dynamically compressed
or non dynamically compressed, with clear labels as to which is which.

And leave us to buy the version we'd rather have. I would NEVER buy the more compressed version over the less or non compressed version.

This is something I would like to see but it is unlikely to happen as we are a minority.

CN211276 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 4:47 pm

Lindsayt wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 4:32 pm

With modern technology the music biz should at least be offering us a choice:
dynamically compressed
or non dynamically compressed, with clear labels as to which is which.

And leave us to buy the version we'd rather have. I would NEVER buy the more compressed version over the less or non compressed version.

This is something I would like to see but it is unlikely to happen as we are a minority.

I don't think asking for compressed and uncompressed versions is realistic.
Take this example, I want the uncompressed version but it is likely that most of my listening will be in a car where the compressed version would be the better option. However, applying global compression in the car audio system won't recreate the sound of the compressed original. Why? Simply because compression isn't applied universally. I don't like compression but to produced the compressed version of a recording would require heavy compression on vocals and strings, less on guitar and little or none on brass. Easy to do with a multi track recording but almost impossible to recreate from a two track recording.

So, why can't we have both? Several reasons, vocalists aren't all equal, some will require compression just to make them acceptable for mixing, others will need to be held back because they can get very loud. Vocals often need compression an uncompressed vocal is unlikely to happen, tape naturally compresses very loud inputs that in the digital world would clip and distort.

With a simple band compression can be reduced but with a large band there is more to do and keeping the essential, vocal, parts high enough to overcome drums becomes an issue. Drums are usually recorded with a restricted dynamic range to keep them tame.

Then there is the playback environment; try reproducing a 100db dynamic range at home and see how long domestic harmony lasts. We rarely turn our systems up high enough for the loudest parts to come across at 100db above the quietest. We want an acceptable level but we don't want to lose the quiet bits, essentially we demand compression, it is pretty much essential. In the days of vinyl and tape dynamic range was restricted by the medium with digital dynamic range has to be artificially restricted to allow home reproduction.

Having said all that, a lot less compression could be applied to modern recordings without detriment, in my opinion. Of course we could demand that the multitrack recordings be made available and then go out and but Allen and Heath SQ or DLive mixers to master our own versions. Whilst I may not like compression the way it seems to be used on recent commercial recordings I really don't fancy sitting down with a mixer the size of a coffee table just to listen to some music (SQ6 638 x 514 x 198mm weight 14.5Kg), and I use a QU32 regularly.

In short, recordings leave much to be desired but we are in the minority and don't have the clout of the radio stations.

NSNO2021 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 4:37 pm Sonically great Talma albums are as rare as rocking horse poo. Fair play to Berry Gordon he knew better than most the key to success was how his records sounded on the radio. I don't suppose he gave a seconds thought about hifi fidelity and why would he ?

Early Tamla Motown and Atlantic/Stax soul is a great tool for setting up an ‘all music’ capable system. On a ‘highly resolving’ system, set up to only be capable of playing the highest quality recordings, such as the stuff the high end firms tout at the big shows, music from any of these three record companies, will have you fleeing the room with bleeding ears. Good luck getting them to play it anyway, they’ll know you are a trouble maker straight away.
On a system built to play all music, right from the earliest Caruso acoustic 78, through the electric era with Louis Armstrong and his hot five/seven bands, to the magnetic era with Bing and Frank, your Staxmotownatlantic will sound exciting, punchy and thoroughly danceable, without taking your head off.
Once they got into the 70s, the production values became more sophisticated, witness Marvin Gaye, Whats going On Stevie Wonder Innervisions (Motown) Isaac Hayes Hot Buttered Soul (Stax) Aretha Franklin Lady Soul (Atlantic) all fab records and fab recordings.
Making the earlier raw compressed stuff sound as good as possible, greatly benefits the sophisticated stuff too, I’ve found.
Building a system that will play everything is extraordinarily difficult. I’ve done it, but it took me forty years.
I’m currently listening on BBC Radio Sheffield, to the Jon Kane Northern Soul show. Yes the sound quality of the records he’s playing is questionable to say the least, but that goes with the territory if you are a Northern Soul fan.
But it’s an enjoyable couple of hours on my system nonetheless
It didn’t used to be.

Two records to start sorting your system would be The Supremes - Love Is Like An Itching In My Heart and
Junior Walker & The All Stars (I’m a) Roadrunner. Stream them and they’ll soon tell you what’s what. Good Luck.

I like quite a few Stax albums, ditto Atlantic as I grew up on soul music, with all nighters/all dayers as part of our regular scene. I am not anti Tamla, its fun music but as a general rule I don't buy Tamla vinyl unless its decent like Inner Visions and that's what it is on my system - decent, not excellent and certainly not stunning. I guess that's why I only have 5 or 6 Tamla albums in a fair sized collection of music.

I always said that a lot of the time what gets released is the engineer's idea of what the producer thinks the band ought to sound like.

Geoff.R.G wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 6:00 pm

Then there is the playback environment; try reproducing a 100db dynamic range at home and see how long domestic harmony lasts. We rarely turn our systems up high enough for the loudest parts to come across at 100db above the quietest. We want an acceptable level but we don't want to lose the quiet bits, essentially we demand compression, it is pretty much essential. In the days of vinyl and tape dynamic range was restricted by the medium with digital dynamic range has to be artificially restricted to allow home reproduction.

Having said all that, a lot less compression could be applied to modern recordings without detriment, in my opinion.

Granted that some compression is required now that the sky is the limit but to these ears it goes too far and further than when dynamic range was constricted by the limitations of the technology. I am thinking in particular of Led Zeppelin albums of the 70s compared with the most recent Iron Maiden albums, both of which contain a lot of what Jimmy Page referred to as "light and shade". Wihen Zep kicked ass after a quiet passage the difference was a lot more pronounced and added a lot more excitement to the music. On the Iron Maiden albums the quiet passages are too loud, diluting the power of the band. All well and good in a car, but not on a hifi system. Am really looking forward to the new Maiden album in a couple of weeks but am not holding my breath about compression.