Some labels do for re issues. Both Classic Records and Analogue Productions vinyl was all sourced from analog RTR tapes...there are many more.
Vinyl vs. Digital Volume Compression
- Thread starter dallasjustice
- Start date
-
- Tags
- vinyl vs. digital
Some labels do for re issues. Both Classic Records and Analogue Productions vinyl was all sourced from analog RTR tapes...there are many more.
I was more referring to standard releases, not the audiophile reissue labels. If one wants new music you won't find it there.
garylkoh
WBF Technical Expert (Speakers & Audio Equipment)
It's impossible to say as the labels have a vested interest in hiding the info so that you will buy their new releases. Unless the artist is aware (take Beck for example), you won't know until you buy it. Most musicians aren't audiophile and have no means to listen to their own mixes on a high-quality system. Many have not even heard their own music on a high quality system.
The industry also has vested interesting in maintaining that audiophile re-issues are superior to original pressings as the recording label would not make any money out of someone who searches out for original pressings.
Sorry, Dallas, i didn't see an answer i could choose in the poll. A number of things;
!) There was plenty of dynamic compression in the days before digital. They did it so records would stand out on the radio in noisy environments, and sometimes simply because they liked it. (Phil Spector was notorious for it, Born to Run is a great example of a very compressed analog recording...)
2) Digital does allow more compression before things gets nasty, and so compression has gotten a bit out of hand in the digital age, but it's a matter of degrees, not a matter of one technology or the other.
3) What determines dynamic range is the content of the recording and the compression or lack thereof in the recording/mastering, not the format.
4) All things being equal, vinyl has significantly less dynamic range than digital.
5) All things are not always equal.
Tim
!) There was plenty of dynamic compression in the days before digital. They did it so records would stand out on the radio in noisy environments, and sometimes simply because they liked it. (Phil Spector was notorious for it, Born to Run is a great example of a very compressed analog recording...)
2) Digital does allow more compression before things gets nasty, and so compression has gotten a bit out of hand in the digital age, but it's a matter of degrees, not a matter of one technology or the other.
3) What determines dynamic range is the content of the recording and the compression or lack thereof in the recording/mastering, not the format.
4) All things being equal, vinyl has significantly less dynamic range than digital.
5) All things are not always equal.
Tim
I am not talking about the technical specs of digital vs vinyl. Clearly, digital wins that hands down. I want to know to what extent are vinyl masters done differently from their digital counterparts. From the video I posted you can see there can be some clear differences wherein vinyl has superior DR compared with its clipped digital counterpart. Those are the type of records I am interested in. IOW, I'm most interested in vinyl where as you say, "all things are not equal" because that's where I think vinyl has a big advantage over digital as a medium.
When it comes to "loudness wars", please remember that in this case evil has a name, and his name is Rick Rubin. He is almost single-handedly responsible for producing the pap that is heard "louder" on radio play. I'm not sure what made him so famous, be he has left a permanent scar on the industry as a result of his production values.
The interesting question originally posed is whether vinyl or CD has greater dynamic range. My question to those answering the poll, is how have you made that determination? Listening to one and then the other sequentially does not seem to be a very reliable way to discern the difference, especially of the differences are small. I’d like to describe a method that I think can accurately allow for a meaningful comparison.
First, an LP and CD of the same album is obviously required. Fortunately, I have a pre-amp that allows adjustment of gain for any input so that when I play an LP and then switch to the CD, I can match the volumes quite accurately. However, the key is to match the volumes during low level passages so that switching between the two sources is undetectable as far as volume levels when the inputs are switched rapidly from one to the other. Then, when loud passages or crescendos are reached, which one is louder? That is the medium with the greater dynamic range. Alternately, you can match volumes for the loud passages and then when things get softer, ask which medium is lower in volume. That will also provide the same answer. This method is quite robust and will allow you to detect small changes in dynamic range that I simply don’t think is possible by listening to the two sources in sequence even if you try to match volumes somehow. Audio memory is just not that good so as to make the comparison possible with sequential as opposed to a simultaneous comparison. I’m sure there are methods that rely on measurement methods that are useful as well, but this direct comparison listening method works quite well.
How do you do it?
First, an LP and CD of the same album is obviously required. Fortunately, I have a pre-amp that allows adjustment of gain for any input so that when I play an LP and then switch to the CD, I can match the volumes quite accurately. However, the key is to match the volumes during low level passages so that switching between the two sources is undetectable as far as volume levels when the inputs are switched rapidly from one to the other. Then, when loud passages or crescendos are reached, which one is louder? That is the medium with the greater dynamic range. Alternately, you can match volumes for the loud passages and then when things get softer, ask which medium is lower in volume. That will also provide the same answer. This method is quite robust and will allow you to detect small changes in dynamic range that I simply don’t think is possible by listening to the two sources in sequence even if you try to match volumes somehow. Audio memory is just not that good so as to make the comparison possible with sequential as opposed to a simultaneous comparison. I’m sure there are methods that rely on measurement methods that are useful as well, but this direct comparison listening method works quite well.
How do you do it?
The production of some seriously great albums is what made Rick Rubin famous. Most people care far more about the quality of the music than the quality of the dynamic range.
Tim
One sure method would be to inspect the waveform. For example, the video in my OP shows the clipping in the digital vs normal waveforms from a vinyl rip. There are other methods for measuring DR in the digital domain. But they aren't accurate when it comes to vinyl. Vinyl's DR values are exaggerated due to the surface noise and other factors.
Dismissing a CD because of low DR values may seem like the right thing to do, but I think that's the wrong approach to take. An example is the new CD by the founder of Harmonium, Serge Fiori. The average DR value is 6, which on the surface most would dismiss as anything worth listening to. However, when listening to the CD is it anything but a loudness mess and exhibits better range (to my ears, not a measurement). It is quite enjoyable in fact. Point being, don't use measurements as the ultimate guideline, whether it be digital or analog.
I would never advocate some absolute number value and I think the DR database is silly with their stupid color coded DR value labeling scheme. BUT, there is better and worse DR. So, I am more interested in better relative DR. IOW, more musical information. I have some Awolnation I love to hear with DR4. It sounds killer in my system.
A few of us care about both.
Of course. That statement was only to explain Rick Rubin's artistry, in spite of his contribution to the loudness war.
Tim
I am surprised that you were able to say that without anyone commenting. Maybe it flew under the radar because it wasn't said in a thread about blind testing.
Personally, I'm sensitive to (excessive) compression, especially remasters of classics that I know well. Even the otherwise superb 40th anniversary remix/remaster of Supertramp's "Crime Of the Century" suffers from it with crushed crescendos. I find it less of a problem where the music was written and produced to be compressed - for example, RHCP's "Californication" is widely regarded as a landmark of compression, but I don't find it offensive or fatiguing. There is a lot of music that doesn't take well to compression though, and it (and I) suffer.
I would have written this as "That is the version with the greater dynamic range." Otherwise the implication is that LP has a greater dynamic range than CD, which isn't strictly true, whereas in actuality the LP version often has a greater dynamic range than the CD version.
You do highlight the problem of level matching two sources that have significantly different dynamics. I try to do it so they sound the same on first listening, but after a while the differences become apparent. I especially listen for natural diminuendos and crescendos, where the flow of the music implies it should be louder or softer, and see if it disappoints. This is especially noticeable on the Dire Straits example below.
Examples:
Metallica, Death Magnetic:
Dire Straits, "Money For Nothing":
A good presentation / discussion by JJ on dynamic range, for those who haven't seen it: (Ironically, it has poor audio...)
Philip O Hanlon
Industry Expert
Caelin,
Indeed at CES 2015 we played a track off of Damien Rice's recent album on vinyl for Rick Rubin (the producer) and compared it to the 24/96 file. Even Rick agreed that the LP had a warmer fuller mid-range than the digital file in this instance, though he preferred the bass on the digital file (the digital file had less bass from the kick drum which were exciting a room node in the Hotel).
Here is a link to Michael Lavorgna's experience - http://www.audiostream.com/content/mola-mola-makua-preamplifierdac-and-higher-note-and-lesson#FouxiKrBrqvtpGYK.97
Bruno Putzey's (designer of the famous Grimm AD1 ADC, Grimm LS1 speakers, Kii 3 speakers, Mola Mola electronics, investor of Universal Class D) explanation was that while the CD, LP & high rez file all originate from the same recording. The analogue & digital masters are quite different. In the increasing digital loudness wars, to keep the vocal as loud as possible, not only are all the other instruments dynamically compressed but when a loud passage or crescendo occurs, no over-saturation is possible in the digital domain, meaning you cannot exceed 0dB. So in the case of the Damien Rice track "I Don't Want To Change You" from "My Favourite Faded Fantasy" which opens quietly building up to a tremendous climax, in the digital release version, the engineer's only option at the climax was to reduce / compress the bass at the kick drum as the vocal was getting louder. While on the LP, there is much greater bandwidth, due to less compression being applied.
However, it is also true that not every LP automatically sounds better than the equivalent digital download. Sometime the LP is cut from the CD digital master, in which case it often sounds worse than the CD, forget about the high rez download. Some of the vinyl rips as well as transfers from the original master tape sound sublime.
BTW, the LP does not sound the same as the master tape; the LP has more bass bloom which is usually not on the tape. I hope this is of help.
