MQA Off-Topic Spinoff

[synn]

I am not knowledgeable enough to contribute to this current discussion but I do have a question:

 

Why aren't records mastered twice: i.e. One LOUD version for the casual streaming/ radio type uses and a dynamic version for sale in lossless physical and digital formats? Is it just a cost/ effort thing?

 

 

[synn]

I don't mind the compression in certain genres. For example in heavy metal or types of music that I play in the background as I work on something.

 

But I do mind it for tracks I want to sit down and listen to. Tracks that I know could sound so much more organic if they were not compressed heavily. Lindsey Stirling's albums are a good example. She is phenomenally talented and the music sounds great from a musicality perspective, but I know from listening to enough high res classical music that her violin could sound a lot more organic if the "Audiophile" versions of her tracks were available. I have purchased a CD,and listened to the same tracks on Spotify and there's not much to choose from them. High res downloads are not available (Onkyomusic and Qobuz both sell only 44.1, 16 bit), so I suspect the high res master is already compressed.

It is a sad thing, but something we just have to live with I suppose.

[synn]

2 minutes ago, #Yoda# said:

 

Lindsey Stirling - Warmer In The Winter is available as 24/48 in Europe at Qobuz and HDtracks. ?

NIce.

I am in Europe, I will check it out. Not sure if it will be mastered any differently from what I heard on Spotify though.

 

I looked high and low for high res versions of her older albums. No luck.

[synn]

3 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

And on Tidal in MQA (24/48).

 

Hey, was I on topic there or what.

 Nice.

 

Not sure what the latest promo material for MQA says, but will it magically make up for the dynamic compression implemented at the mastering stage?

[synn]

My personal experience is that turning up a dynamic record will blast the highs through the roof when things reach a crescendo (e.g. Parsifal conducted by Solti). The magic of such records, when played through capable equipment is to hear the loud parts at tolerable volumes  and appreciate the subtlety of the quieter parts, while being amazed at the clarity on both ends.

 

a compressed record is loud all around, turning up the dynamic record to volume match the loudest parts does not sound the same to me at all.

[synn]

As a metal AND classical music fan, I agree completely!

[synn]

Metal with some air does indeed sound beautiful. I am trying to think of some records like that, probably In Flames’ The Jester Race, Dark Tranquillity’s Treason Wall (Live in Milan) (its been a while since I listened to it, but Iron Maiden: Rock in Rio is probably one of those albums too) etc. would qualify. The effect is more pronounced in songs with clean and distorted guitar passages and dueling solos. 

 

But i do incline to think that the effect is more pronounced (or conversely, compression is a lot more detrimental) to classical music due to the inherent complexity of the arrangements and the sheer spectrum of frequencies present in a classical composition. 

[synn]

17 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

I wouldn't be too sure about that. I am not a metal lover (at all), but only one week ago quite some Halloween share passed through my speakers, and I noticed the sheer beauty all the air in metal can bring. Yes, I said beauty.

Having said that, I already dedicated a Rammstein album a best (sounding) recording, two years or so ago. Luckily Rammstein I don't call heavy metal, but it is about the gist. Distortion guitars can literally sound beautiful, but it requires the air in it, which is the opposite of compression. BTW, I should try an MQA with it - as I don't think it will work (and ZZ-Top isn't the best example - too friendly). Anyone an idea for what to try ?

 

Are any of the Scorpions albums available in MQA? Heavy enough, yet not too heavy.

[synn]

1 hour ago, MetalNuts said:

I believe the songs you mean metal with air should sound like Metallica's "Nothing Else Matters" and "Unforgiven".  However, only part of it has air, i.e. the Intro, when the heavy guitar sound comes in, it is just heavy and by nature make one have difficult to breathe and the air is being driven out by the loudness.

 

I quite like the mixing of the black album. It’s the last “pleasing” sounding Metallica album IMO. I like some songs from Load and Reload, but production wise, they sound rather meh.

 

everything since then has been garbage, musically and technically. I religiously avoid St. Anger because I do not want to hear a trash can being used as a snare drum.

[synn]

1 hour ago, Miska said:

Just a comment on dynamics, something from RedBook that is rock and sounds dynamic to me is this one:

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/88991

 

Another one is Pink Floyd - Wish You Were Here SACD-edition. The original first RedBook version of DSOTM isn't too bad either.

 

 

If we may suggest mellower records, Brothers in Arms sounds flippin' fantastic. Almost everything from Dire Straits does.

[synn]

I no longer own the CDs, but I remember several albums from Tesla sounding very good for Hard Rock as well.

[synn]

I think the problem is that it is a lot harder for the average person to understand the superiority of high res audio (Be it streaming or downloads) compared to video (4K vs anything lesser). A casual look at a 4K TV on display at your average box moving chain is enough for most  people to see how remarkable the picture looks. To appreciate high res audio, you need to sit in a listening room and actually focus on listening. The average person is not inclined to do that. Another factor might be that video is often a family/ communal activity while serious music listening is more or less a very personal one.

 

The industry has also failed to get high res audio into the hands of people compared to video. DVD and Blu Ray successfully penetrated the mainstream. Sony made a masterstroke in making the Playstation 3 the most accessible Blu Ray player, thereby sneaking the format into the homes of millions before they even realized that they wanted Blu Ray. 3D was a failure, but 4K TVs gained enough critical mass to se the stage for 4K Blu Ray. And the cycle goes on.

 

Every attempt at getting high res audio into the mainstream has been a failure. DVD-A, Blu Ray A, SACD, DSD... Forget streaming high res, even online sales of CD quality tracks is a mess. I just bought a Tracy Chapman CD the other day at the local store for EUR 6. The same album in 44.1 costs EUR 16 on Qobuz and Onkyomusic! Why would I pay more than double when I could buy the CD, rip it and keep all the printed material inside the box?

I really hope that Spotify and Apple start CD quality streaming very soon. That is quite possibly the last avenue for high quality audio to reach the mainstream consumer. Tidal, Deezer, Qobuz etc. are niche players who won't make a dent, MQA or otherwise.

[synn]

Hi Brian,

 

I am not involved in music production nor I ever intend to get into it. I am involved in photography and retouching, so I do get the general gist of the concepts such as dynamic range, sampling frequency etc.  when I extrapolate them to the audio realm.

 

A/B testing of samples is not about seeing which one is "Better", at least not for me. It's more about understanding the specific character of each codec. For example, I do regularly compare the output from my medium format gear, my full frame gear and compact gear, not to see which one is "better" (In the ideal conditions, the medium format wipes the floor with everything else and then sits down for a smoke, but we don't always get to shoot in ideal conditions), but to understand how each of them behave in those conditions. This helps me make informed decisions on what gear to use where.

 

Similarly, comparing the 2L samples is more about understanding the specific sonic characteristics of MQA vs PCM vs DSD in the same environment (i.e. my audio setup).

As a matter of fact, I rarely buy anything over 48 or 96khz. I do not have the golden ears to distinguish anything above that quality and I am not particularly inclined to build up a DSD collection (Or MQA, for that matter). I did buy a 192Khz album from 2L, only because I felt like giving them more money after I used and abused the test track from that album a few dozen times (Quiet Winter Night from Hoff Ensemble. Give it a go, beautiful music).

 

Rest assured, I am not (And am not even pretending to) come after your job! I'm just a guy who likes to come home, sit in front of the audio rig for an hour or so and listen to some good music.

[synn]

53 minutes ago, mansr said:

The sample rate thing is a numbers chase just like in so many other areas. For a while, x86 processors were pushed to ever higher GHz speeds, ultimately leading Intel to design the Pentium 4 with the primary goal of high clock speeds without regard to actual performance, reaching 3.8 GHz in 2004. Two years later, the design was abandoned for the new Core architecture which outperformed its predecessor by a good margin despite running at scarcely more than half the clock speed.

 

Digital cameras also suffered from a race for the highest megapixel counts, despite the image quality actually going down. The most ridiculous was perhaps the Nokia phone with a 51 Mpixel camera.

 

Higher numbers don't always equate with better. Audio sample rates are another example of this.

Just a small side note because photography is something close to me.

 

That Nokia was actually a pretty interesting design. One was never to use the 51MP sensor to take full res images. It was basically oversampling data which when downscaled to say, 12MP results in an image with less noise than one with a native 12MP sensor.

 

Looking at full res of course, it is no match to my 40MP medium format or 36MP full frame. But at 12MP, it gave some compacts a good run for their money.

[synn]

I don’t disagree about the optics part. I have made fantastic prints from old 22MP medium format backs that kicked the ass of 20plus MP smaller format cameras. I will take a larger sensor anyday. Still, for what it was, that Nokia made decent images, better than most other phones of its time and some compacts too.

 

 

regarding advertising, well... Marketers gonna Market...

[synn]

That was Iron Maiden, peter. 

The Scorpions was a different example.

 

 

most metsl IS a Wal of sound. There are some dynamic records, but one shouldn’t expect the same of them as one does from a Jazz recording.

[synn]

44 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

This is logical. But yesterday I tried to sort out the difference between Rosenrot (Rammstein) and the Iron Maiden album for DR, level of compression and headroom used, and from there I really could not find a difference. Rosenrot though carries all the beauty we talked about (in the guitars) and is nowhere near a wall of sound.

So here too I just learned a couple of things. Namely that I don't understand and know everything. 

 

Rammstein uses shorter gauge guitars with dual hum buckers . I am not sure what amplifiers they are using, but it sounds like Mesa Boogie. That combo is a much thicker, fuller sound than Iron Maiden’s, who have a more classic meta sound of strats and Marshall amps. That might also contribute to the perception.

[synn]

Absolutely, the recording process adds a ton of variables on top of the band’s sound, the point was that straight out of the instruments, the bands have entirely different sounds.

[synn]

10 minutes ago, firedog said:

Obviously DR shouldn't be a single criteria. There is music that naturally doesn't have a high DR: some rock and blues (especially heavy metal), and modern electronic based music like hip hop. There aren't a lot of soft vs. loud passages in those types of music, so they won't have a high DR in any case; I don't expect those recordings to have a high DR.

 

A recording that has a fairly steady natural volume (whether loud or soft) won't have a high DR, and it shouldn't. But I do expect it (or wish for it) on other types of music which often  naturally have lots of volume dynamics: lots of older pre 90's music, jazz, folk, folk-rock, world, classical. Also a lot of music with relatively complex arrangements and instrumentation, like some psychedelic rock or "art-rock". 

 

Those shouldn't be squeezed so that the softest passages and instruments are the same volume as the loud ones. Doing so does take away from the artistic intent of the original (for older recordings) and has a truly unnatural sound to it. It doesn't sound "modern". It sounds like something trying to hard to sound modern. 

 

+1.

 

I bought “Kites and Echoes” by John Metcalfe from the Society of Sound. The version I got was a 96khz vinyl rip. The track “Gold, green” sounds absolutely amazing with its spaciousness and depth.

 

the same tracks are also on Spotify under the album name “The appearance of colour”. File format and quality  differences aside, it appears to be a completely different master. The spaciousness is gone, every frequency is competing with each other and the magic of the high res version is simply not there. That doesn’t sound “Modern”, it just sounds like a great track has been hamstrung.

 

That said, both versions, when listened to during a commute, even with my B&W P7 or B&O H8 sounds about the same. Which is how I suppose 95% of music is consumed these days. So I can definitely see why very little of music produced currently is done so that the remaining 5% can appreciate the nuances.

 

 

[synn]

It’s quite unfortunate that Mr. Lucey finds it appropriate to yell at and mock the so called “1%” who apparently do not deserve to have their preferences heard. This so called 1% pay more for music (not equipment, the actual music) than the 99%  ever will.

 

its a good thing that voting with the wallet is a valid option.

[synn]

I think Philips started calling their pseudo separate components “HiFi” systems and the name stuck.

 

HiFi has always stood for high fidelity. Just because someone calls something with .1%THR Hi-Fi Doesn’t make it so.

[synn]

13 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

Maybe we should just go back to pipe organs, these records are ALL TERRIBLE!

 

Please define "music purist"?

Please define "authentic audiophile"?

Please define "grossly distorted"?

 

You have your taste, it's rigid, not better.  You are inflexible, and entitled and have a bit of an arrogance ("not to purchase their crap") about you.   Ok.

 

 

MYTH

 

LIE

 

There is NO recording that equals the live event.  Your ears are not very good if you actually can't tell the difference.

 

All recording is a fabrication, it's never live, it's always Memorex.

 

Fair enough, and this is all good by me.

 

 

Of course, you are an entitled consumer.   Yet not a purist, more of a dynamics Nazi.  A purist LOVES THE ARTISTS and iS OPEN TO THE EVOLUTION OF ART.

 

You only like Rembrandt, Basqiat is "crap".

 

Got it.

 

Again I say ... all records are "records".  They are never real.  Your purist lie is a personal issue.  A platform to pontificate superiority, but has nothing to do with music or artistry.  Its dogma.

 

I think Mr. Lucey reads to react, not to understand.

 

no one said that a recording sounds the same as live.

 

but when a live event is being recorded, we would like it to sound AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE (borrowing a trick from Mr. Lucey) to the original. And audiophile recordings, which are almost always having high DR get closer to that goal than a wall of sound.

 

No one is expecting you to change your position and you make money from it, so good for you. But please don’t lower yourselves to calling us lemmings who don’t know any better.

[synn]

@PeterSt continuing with our hard rock/ metal and DR plus MQA discussion, if you could find “Scorpions: Best” on Tidal in high res and MQA, give it a go. This is a well produced hard rock album.  

[synn]

Haha.

thats a pity.

 

its a compilation album, so maybe you could hunt down the original tracks?

[synn]

I think we need to make a distinction between technical excellence and musical genius.

 

a great piece of musical genius, depending on the genre will sound great irrespective of the DR of the final output. But (depending on the genre ) it will shine through a lot more with a higher DR version.

 

in photography we say the same. A great photographer will take a great picture with a point and shoot, better than what most tourists will do with a DSLR. But he will do AMAZING work with a camera with a lot more DR.