MQA Off-Topic Spinoff

[Teresa]

On 11/16/2017 at 11:51 PM, Brian Lucey said:

...When did "Audiophiles" decide that you entitled to tell artists what to make?  For the 1% or less of their audience?   REALLY ?...

 

I have never told an artist how to make their recordings. However, there are recordings made for audiophiles and music purists. I purchase recordings mostly from authentic audiophile labels I listed in this previous post in this thread. If an artist makes highly compressed, grossly distorted and crappy recordings I exercise my right as a consumer not to purchase their crap. It's my money and I'll spend it how I want!

 

On 11/16/2017 at 11:54 PM, Brian Lucey said:

...I WANT MY DYNAMICS !   Then listen to older music...

 

Not just older music, newly recorded audiophile recordings still have exciting wide dynamic range. You know those recordings which are audiophile from the microphones to the finished product.

 

20 hours ago, firedog said:

...It's what a lot of us object to: older music being remastered, and instead of using modern techniques to improve the original sound, it mostly is just crushed dynamically to make it sound "modern"...

 

And sometimes that becomes the "new master" which is sent to audiophile remaster companies whose products are aimed at audiophiles which don't want squashed dynamics.

 

9 hours ago, arcman said:

 My answer for people who do not like the work, sound, etc of modern recordings, .....

....don’t listen or purchase. Artist, producers, engineers & labels owe us nothing! Nobody is forcing any music or anything down people’s throats. We choose what we want to listen to.  We are actually in control...

 

I agree and I support recording companies that produce dynamic, lifelike, realistic music recordings by purchasing their recordings. I feel no obligation to purchase crappy recorded major label recordings, if they make crap they won't get my cash.

[Teresa]

18 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

...Anything after that is way too strident and loud for me.  You may not be aware of this, but there is some consensus that overly loud content causes listening fatigue...

 

I agree. Audacity (a free program) will show how much clipping is in a piece of music. Clipping should be very rare or not exist at all as one is not supposed to go beyond 0 dBfs in PCM. Yet many modern songs can have tons of clips as they try to make music louder and louder and compressed as hell.

 

 

In my experience listening fatigue happens quite soon in modern compressed music. And I find digital distortion caused by excessive digital clipping to be the worst sounding distortion I've ever heard. Even CD has enough dynamic range for clipping to never occur. Why does it exist?

 

Also see

[arcman]

5 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

I have never told an artist how to make their recordings. However, there are recordings made for audiophiles and music purists. I purchase recordings mostly from authentic audiophile labels I listed in this previous post in this thread. If an artist makes highly compressed, grossly distorted and crappy recordings I exercise my right as a consumer not to purchase their crap. It's my money and I'll spend it how I want!

 

 

Not just older music, newly recorded audiophile recordings still have exciting wide dynamic range. You know those recordings which are audiophile from the microphones to the finished product.

 

 

And sometimes that becomes the "new master" which is sent to audiophile remaster companies whose products are aimed at audiophiles which don't want squashed dynamics.

 

 

I agree and I support recording companies that produce dynamic, lifelike, realistic music recordings by purchasing their recordings. I feel no obligation to purchase crappy recorded major label recordings, if they make crap they won't get my cash.

Teresa, great points. That is one great thing about services like Tidal, Qobuz and even Apple Music. You have such a wide selection of great sounding music and you can choose to stream anytime. I know there's plenty of high quality labels that may not stream, however, the major services have lots of great options. I'm a huge fan of artists that, in my opinion, really focus on sonics as a major part of the overall listening experience. Aimee Mann, T-Bone Burnett (artist and producer), Black Keys, Daniel Lanois (like T-Bone), Guy Andrews (electronic) plus many others. Plus, all the great classical and jazz recordings (both old and new). 

[Abtr]

53 minutes ago, arcman said:

... That is one great thing about services like Tidal, Qobuz and even Apple Music. You have such a wide selection of great sounding music and you can choose to stream anytime. ...

Yes. There's however one problem. At least on Tidal, often (not always) only some stupid DR compressed remastered version of the original album is available (even in MQA). I would like to have a choice between original and remastered versions.

[arcman]

1 hour ago, Abtr said:

Yes. There's however one problem. At least on Tidal, often (not always) only some stupid DR compressed remastered version of the original album is available (even in MQA). I would like to have a choice between original and remastered versions.

Good point. I know there are a few "pre" latest remastered versions on the sites. I would say the older versions gets taken down once they go out of print. At one time (I have not checked for a year or so), Tidal (and a few instances with Qobuz), have quite a few "public domain" selections on the off labels. Especially with Jazz.

[Brian Lucey]

On November 17, 2017 at 3:26 AM, firedog said:

 

I'm sure if when doing the remaster they  had decided they need to lower it's average DR rating from 14 to 8, or even 6, we would have noticed (without measuring) and wouldn't have been so happy with the remaster. I'm pretty sure that's the kind of thing Samuel was referring to. 

 

Where he and others are wrong is the idea the ME makes this decision.

 

Labels do.

 

Kind of Blue, Columbia's catalog, the greatest selling jazz record of all time, would be treasured.

[Brian Lucey]

12 hours ago, Teresa said:

 

I have never told an artist how to make their recordings. However, there are recordings made for audiophiles and music purists. I purchase recordings mostly from authentic audiophile labels I listed in this previous post in this thread. If an artist makes highly compressed, grossly distorted and crappy recordings I exercise my right as a consumer not to purchase their crap. It's my money and I'll spend it how I want!

 

 

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.

 

Quote

Not just older music, newly recorded audiophile recordings still have exciting wide dynamic range. You know those recordings which are audiophile from the microphones to the finished product.

 

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.

Quote

 

And sometimes that becomes the "new master" which is sent to audiophile remaster companies whose products are aimed at audiophiles which don't want squashed dynamics.

 

 

Fair enough, and this is all good by me.

 

Quote

I agree and I support recording companies that produce dynamic, lifelike, realistic music recordings by purchasing their recordings. I feel no obligation to purchase crappy recorded major label recordings, if they make crap they won't get my cash.

 

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.

[rickca]

19 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

Basqiat is "crap"

Well I agree with that part, but I do like some modern art.

 

23 minutes ago, Brian Lucey said:

A purist LOVES THE ARTISTS and iS OPEN TO THE EVOLUTION OF ART.

And I like that statement too.  I think your 'dynamics Nazi' is a provocative overstatement, but that's how you like to express yourself to get your point across.  You can be really creative and new and still love the classics.

[Abtr]

2 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

...

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.

You don't seem to understand that high DR music generally sounds *better* than low DR music. You shouldn't even try to comment on MQA in terms of sound quality..

[crenca]

2 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

 

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.

 

Ah Brian, you know as well as anyone that "evolution" of art (or anything else) can go both ways.  anything can "evolve" in a good direction as well as a bad.  They "myth" you are proposing here is the idea, the dogma, that CHANGE = GOOD in that "period, end of discussion" sort of way.   

 

The underlying context of this conversation about DR is a difference between what "fidelity" is.  Those who hold to the idea that music should reflect the live analogue as much as possible, are right in saying that live acoustic (amplified/electronic not so much) has a loudness range that is as much a part of the music as rhythm, melody, etc.  Even with studio creations such as modern pop/rock/electronic this is true to a certain extent.  However, the DR is genre relevant obviously.

 

Of course the recording is not "real", it is always a facsimile.  However fidelity is judged in large part (really, almost entirely) by comparison to the live event.  This comparison is not crude - audiophiles are all too aware of the limitations of recording and playback chains.

 

My problem with (some) audiophiles and DR is that they overemphasize it, not that it is to be dismissed entirely.

 

The genre issue brings up a point of discussion:  Can it be said that modern pop/rock/electronic multi tracked/mixed "recordings" that are entirely a product of the studio (and thus have no real "live" analogue) ever be judged as "audiophile" or "high fidelity" at all?  Brian is right - these creations are an art form unto themselves - what does it even mean to judge them by the usual audiophile standards?  In the end, Brian and the artists and the labels and the consumers of such products can say "it is meant to be this way and your rejection of it is dogma" just as Brian has done...

[The Computer Audiophile]

Hi fidelity has zero to do with the recorded version compared to a live version. Hi fidelity is about reproducing the delivered product as close to the delivered product as possible. 

 

If I listen to classical or EDM, nothing changes. The artist delivers a product and I try to reproduce it without changing the delivered product. 

 

A live event has nothing to do with anything. 

 

I think Brian has taken his position on DR and will not budge for fear of something. Earlier he said low DR is all about artist insecurity. If that’s the case, the rest of his reasons are somewhat odd. 

 

If squashing music was all about the sound an artists wants, the artist would squash the sound at live concerts and on video games (Metallica). The artist would not be interested in a 1953 Strat with a vintage Dumble Overdrive Special amp if the artist really liked the sound of squashed music. The sound of that combo can’t be heard to the fullest extent when squashed. 

 

 

Theres no such thing as progress in art, only change. High or low DR has zero to do with progress or moving the art forward or backward. Claiming a certain technique is old or new, with the connotation that old isn’t as good or is behind times, is preposterous. Synthesizers were popular. Until they weren’t. It’s all about change. 

 

As a creative person, I hate doing what others have done. I can see why making records different from previous generations is compelling. However, at some point being different becomes the norm. When everyone is different (from the old) no one is different. Seeing Daft Punk create Random Access Memories like artist used to create records was cool and different. Maybe being cool and different will swing back to having the unique sound of the 53 Strat rather than a compressed six string instrument that sounds generic (like everybody else).

[Abtr]

28 minutes ago, crenca said:

... In the end, Brian and the artists and the labels and the consumers of such products can say "it is meant to be this way and your rejection of it is dogma" just as Brian has done...

Nope. High DR music generally sounds *better* then low DR music. That's not dogma, that's an experiential fact..

[The Computer Audiophile]

2 minutes ago, Abtr said:

Nope. High DR music generally sounds *better* then low DR music. That's not dogma, that's an experiential fact..

Better is a matter of taste. 

[mansr]

18 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi fidelity has zero to do with the recorded version compared to a live version. Hi fidelity is about reproducing the delivered product as close to the delivered product as possible. 

 

If I listen to classical or EDM, nothing changes. The artist delivers a product and I try to reproduce it without changing the delivered product. 

 

A live event has nothing to do with anything. 

Exactly. A hi-fi system should reproduce the input signal as accurately as possible. With hypothetical perfect components, a microphone placed in front of a speaker would deliver exactly the same signal that went into the playback chain. Obviously, this isn't possible in reality, but it should still be the goal. The reference is the input signal, not some "live" version thereof that may not even exist.

[Abtr]

21 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Better is a matter of taste. 

Of course. But tell me, what do you generally prefer, high or low DR?

[The Computer Audiophile]

53 minutes ago, Abtr said:

Of course. But tell me, what do you generally prefer, high or low DR?

Without question I generally prefer high DR. But I won’t claim that’s a fact, which is why I responded to your post. 

[Abtr]

23 minutes ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Without question I generally prefer high DR. But I won’t claim that’s a fact, which is why I responded to your post. 

I think that if a majority of people generally prefers high DR music over low DR music, then at some point it can be said that high DR music sounds *better* than low DR music, as an experiential fact..

[PeterSt]

18 minutes ago, Abtr said:

I think that if a majority of people generally prefers high DR music over low DR music, then at some point it can be said that high DR music sounds *better* than low DR music, as an experiential fact..

 

I think you refer to Empirical Evidence ...

 

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

2 hours ago, Abtr said:

Nope. High DR music generally sounds *better* then low DR music. That's not dogma, that's an experiential fact..

Better is a matter of taste. 

 

No, not as you define better as more to the truth.

I won't say (or claim) that everybody is doing that, but I compare to real instruments and never one single bit of taste.

[crenca]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Hi fidelity has zero to do with the recorded version compared to a live version. Hi fidelity is about reproducing the delivered product as close to the delivered product as possible. 

 

 

I don't need to read past the first sentence to know that we disagree.  In classical (i.e. think old timers - high fidelity through say the 1970's) thinking High Fidelity only makes sense from the perspective of reproduction of the live, acoustic performance analogue.  In this classical ideal the whole process (recording, the "delivered product", the playback chain) came into play.  This more wholelistic, organic definition of course has faded with most music now being electronic, studio only creations.

 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

Seeing Daft Punk create Random Access Memories like artist used to create records was cool and different.

 

Not coincidentally  I played that 8 hours ago.

It is again unlistenable because of one flat mass. And funnily enough what people call distortion is not distortion when intended (just saying) AND well reproduced (like people may refer to the last track with too much bass etc. - this is not so at all - not over here).

This is not a matter of taste, I'm afraid. But I know, everybody looks at it differently for various reasons.

[Sonicularity]

16 minutes ago, Abtr said:

I think that if a majority of people generally prefers high DR music over low DR music, then at some point it can be said that high DR music sounds *better* than low DR music, as an experiential fact..

 

Doesn't it depend on the situation?  Some people might prefer a low DR with their Amazon Alexa devices or with their phone's ear buds.  What about the volume level?  Do you want to hear a high DR when listening to music in the background at very low volume levels?

 

It is not as simple as saying that a greater DR is preferred.  In reality, where the largest group of potential consumers would often benefit from lower DR that caters to advertisements and to the most common device usage, things are not quite so obvious.

 

The results from the much maligned "loudness war" were not just a mistake.  

[PeterSt]

Am I the only one in Holland who refers to "HiFi" when he likes to refer to something of the past which was "poor", so to speak ?

I am serious. HiFi *is* 70's stuff. Not sure what WikiPedia would say.

[crenca]

1 hour ago, mansr said:

Exactly. A hi-fi system should reproduce the input signal as accurately as possible. With hypothetical perfect components, a microphone placed in front of a speaker would deliver exactly the same signal that went into the playback chain. Obviously, this isn't possible in reality, but it should still be the goal. The reference is the input signal, not some "live" version thereof that may not even exist.

 

With modern music, there is no original "input signal" as such much of the time - the signal itself is a digital creation, and the recording is a multi-track phenomena with some components that were recorded with microphone (and then heavily altered with DSP) and some that were not, then those themselves are mixed and mashed, etc.  So I am not really seeing an original anything on which to judge fidelity (to the original)...

[crenca]

6 minutes ago, Sonicularity said:

 

Doesn't it depend on the situation?  Some people might prefer a low DR with their Amazon Alexa devices or with their phone's ear buds.  What about the volume level?  Do you want to hear a high DR when listening to music in the background at very low volume levels?

 

It is not as simple as saying that a greater DR is preferred.  In reality, where the largest group of potential consumers would often benefit from lower DR that caters to advertisements and to the most common device usage, things are not quite so obvious.

 

The results from the much maligned "loudness war" were not just a mistake.  

 

I think some of this is right.  Modern electronica, IDM, etc. would not be what it is if it had more DR.  It's "flatness" and the relative loudness of its component parts is as much a part of the music as the high DR of much of classical is an essential ingredient of what it is...