MQA Off-Topic Spinoff

[PeterSt]

2 minutes ago, Shadders said:

that the spare space on a CD is used for special remixes

 

Nice idea. But where are the CD shops ?

CD is dead. Blame me.

 

[synn]

16 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

@Brian Lucey, OK, we just didn't get it. Over time we had some more conversation with people in your field. I never even considered that we were NOT customer to those people. I can't say that we always felt cozy and safe, but at least we were treated as customers WHILE ... apparently we are not at all. And of course not, because we are not playing you. But somehow I had the idea that we were paying people like you indirectly. We buy albums, you live.

 

But something has to go wrong, because nobody is going to buy those albums you deem modern. And I seriously don't see kids buy them either. Kids also don't do Tidal and not even Spotify. Kids make MP3's from YouTubes. They are not Paranoid, they listen to it.

 

The "artist" is the real fool. And you are not going to tell them, obviously.

 

 

+1.

 

This is what I was saying before.

It's rather tragic when the "1%" is being insulted for voicing our preferences when the 1% are buying more music than the 99% ever will.

 

I have a decent enough stereo system, nothing like €30,000 preamps or whatever. It is what one could consider "Entry level" audiophile.

Yet I have paid more for gear and more importantly, MUSIC than anyone I know. Almost everyone else in my circle are happy streaming off YouTube or the free tier of Spotify. And in that process, putting money into Google's ginormous purse or paying €0.001 or something to the artist per playback, respectively.

 

If Brian thinks that catering to them is more important, ridiculing the "1%" is justified, ok. More power to him. I am sorry that I won't be contributing to his livelihood.

[synn]

5 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

 

Nice idea. But where are the CD shops ?

CD is dead. Blame me.

 

I buy a lot of CDs from Saturn or Amazon.

Almost all of them go for €5-6. The same album on Onkyomusic or Qobuz at 44.1Khz costs double that, easily.

I don't have a CD player in my listening room. Every CD goes straight into the computer, gets ripped and stored on a drive.

 

I can rip the CDs, keep the physical media aside as a backup and keep all the wonderful printed material in the jewelcases.

[PeterSt]

Ignorant me :

 

Our son had a great drummer for teacher. I respected the man. He even caused / arranged for private drumming lessons from Cesar Zuiderwijk (drummer Golden Earring). Nothing, really nothing indicated that the teacher would not be "in" for .WAV recordings of the performances of his students and instead thought that MP3 was great enough.

That is where he lost my respect. Not for his drumming which remained the same, but as someone working on the wrong cause (I know, this is not justified, but I was disappointed).

 

A musician doesn't even play for recordings as such. He plays for the fun of playing with the band.

 

 

Or on your own with things like these (there's three of them with a grand wing in the middle). Ever back I lasted hours in a row, each night.

If that brings money at the same time, good. But hardly any musician is interested in sound quality - hence is not an audiophile as such. Maybe an orchestra as a whole has some commercial interest and the recording is their advertising. Maybe.

 

Sorry for the BS. I guess I want to bring something across which will never get there. 

 

 

 

[PeterSt]

11 minutes ago, synn said:

I buy a lot of CDs from Saturn or Amazon.

Almost all of them go for €5-6.

 

Of course, I know. But I bought only three CD's in the past year, which were all CD's I wanted (two rares from Yello and one Paul Hattink) just because I could not get them anywhere else. The remainder is on e.g. Tidal.

 

OffTopic, the real problem comprises of not being able any more to go through the endless amounts of CD's in stores. Man, I spent my Saturdays on that.

True, we could do the same with LPs again. But ...

[synn]

Here at my neighborhood Saturn, they have a giant area full of clearance CDs. I spend a few hours there every few weeks, sometimes coming across a gem or two.

 

Just the other week, i found a “Greatest hits” Cd from Fleetwood Mac for €6. 

[Shadders]

24 minutes ago, synn said:

I buy a lot of CDs from Saturn or Amazon.

Almost all of them go for €5-6. The same album on Onkyomusic or Qobuz at 44.1Khz costs double that, easily.

I don't have a CD player in my listening room. Every CD goes straight into the computer, gets ripped and stored on a drive.

 

I can rip the CDs, keep the physical media aside as a backup and keep all the wonderful printed material in the jewelcases.

Hi synn,

I do the same - always buy the CD - usually they are the double CD version for £1 more. I recently purchased most of Paul Weller's albums for £30 total - very good value for money - and as per yourself, rip them, keep CD's for backup, or listening elsewhere.

I buy mostly recent music - so, audiophiles are not stuck in the past, just want recordings to be better in regards to DR.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Abtr]

2 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

... DR is meaningless to musical value.  Old music has more DR.  be old if you want to be stuck.  Sad for you but your life.

 

You keep repeating that DR has no musical value. But on the other hand, you stated earlier that most (if not all) excessively low DR mixing and subsequent mastering is *not* done for artistic reasons at all, but because of fear of the artist to be ignored. So don't you agree then that such albums are *not* optimized for sound quality or some artistic ideal and are basically just loud for being loud? You even suggested that in most (if not all) these cases you would actually prefer higher DR mixing and mastering. Are you contradicting yourself? Is it possible that your sound preferences regarding DR are actually closer to 'audiophile' preferences than (for some reason) you care to admit?  

[PeterSt]

1 hour ago, synn said:

Just the other week, i found a “Greatest hits” Cd from Fleetwood Mac for €6.

 

Of course not this one :

 

 

Looks like they can use some extra DR.

[fas42]

8 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

Bottom line ...  2 speakers is never TRULY recreating a live event.  Sorry.   It's just a degree of illusion that you find acceptable.  A line in the sand you can live with based on DR and recording quality.  I get it.

 

Yet your own words are self contradictory.  2 speakers can make live a let down?   Then they are not the same.

 

Yes, always an illusion - but far more than just "acceptable", and something I "can live with". As you appear to be saying, the emotional 'hit' is all important - and high quality replay delivers that, consistently. Poor DR is the worst offender in making it harder to deliver the emotion - because the lack of light and shade, without letup, is disturbing to listen to; unkempt recording quality OTOH can be "listened through", to quite an amazing degree.

 

"Sameness" is not the issue - what is relevant is whether reproduction delivers the equivalent, or better, kick of the real thing.

[semente]

2 hours ago, synn said:

 

I have a decent enough stereo system, nothing like €30,000 preamps or whatever. It is what one could consider "Entry level" audiophile.

Yet I have paid more for gear and more importantly, MUSIC than anyone I know. Almost everyone else in my circle are happy streaming off YouTube or the free tier of Spotify. And in that process, putting money into Google's ginormous purse or paying €0.001 or something to the artist per playback, respectively.

 

Same here.

[Samuel T Cogley]

Some interesting back and forth, but it seems @Brian Lucey is only responding to those posts that allow him to rant against the audiophile stereotype.

 

Low DR is because the music is LOUD.  The music is LOUD because some combination of the artist/management/record label believes loudness sells (funny how Mr. Lucey doesn't expound on what that "insecurity" is and where it comes from).  Mr. Lucey's thesis seems to be "real" music lovers don't care about excessive loudness (and all the damage it causes).

 

Nonsense.

 

As others have pointed out in the thread, there is modern music with a more reasonable overall loudness and some mastering engineers (Bob Katz for example) are active in their support of increased dynamic range in modern recordings.

 

I suppose a mastering engineer that has any sympathy for the geezerly Audiophiles would be the opposite of "hip", "cool", or whatever passes for pop culture cred these days.  And as Mr. Lucey points out, he's 50 and will have to redouble his efforts to appear to be with the 20 somethings and their artistic aesthetic.  Let's face it, fancy stereos are a grandpa thing.  Earbuds, Beats headphones, Bluetooth speakers and car stereos are what the "top" mastering engineers shoot for these days.

[Shadders]

5 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

Some interesting back and forth, but it seems @Brian Lucey is only responding to those posts that allow him to rant against the audiophile stereotype.

 

Low DR is because the music is LOUD.  The music is LOUD because some combination of the artist/management/record label believes loudness sells (funny how Mr. Lucey doesn't expound on what that "insecurity" is and where it comes from).  Mr. Lucey's thesis seems to be "real" music lovers don't care about excessive loudness (and all the damage it causes).

 

Nonsense.

 

As others have pointed out in the thread, there is modern music with a more reasonable overall loudness and some mastering engineers (Bob Katz for example) are active in their support of increased dynamic range in modern recordings.

 

I suppose a mastering engineer that has any sympathy for the geezerly Audiophiles would be the opposite of "hip", "cool", or whatever passes for pop culture cred these days.  And as Mr. Lucey points out, he's 50 and will have to redouble his efforts to appear to be with the 20 somethings and their artistic aesthetic.  Let's face it, fancy stereos are a grandpa thing.  Earbuds, Beats headphones, Bluetooth speakers and car stereos are what the "top" mastering engineers shoot for these days.

Hi,

Whatever happens, the industry will not go the route unless there is money in it.

Perhaps they should take a leaf from the video world - offer HDR - High Dynamic Range as per the latest TV's.

I cannot see the entire CD being HDR, but remixed HDR tracks using spare space, would work - same cost, added value, which may then become the new "in vogue".

If the record labels realised this has the potential to sell more CD's, then it will be worth the slight extra effort.

Regards,

Shadders.

[crenca]

5 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

Impossible fantasy. There is no accurate anything, it's all done by choices and in degrees of imperfection.

 

Minimum chain = Mic+ Pre Amp+Tape or AD converter.  AxBxC = near infinite choice combos.

 

Then analog mixer to AD

or DAW in the box (software all sounds different)

 

Recording is fake.  Sorry.  You are simply rigid in your ability to enjoy prorduction styles.

 

 

I've heard more recordings and styles  than you, I find value in them all.

 

 

BINGO !!

 

 

 

Well there we are. Realism snob.

 

 

I don't agree with Brian here, but I think it is what happens when "fidelity" is defined as something only related to an input signal, and applied to studio only creations.  Without a "live" analogue by which persons can compare the entire recording/mix/mastering/format/playback chain, then a radical subjectivist "art" occurs, and it becomes a mere personal preference around realism, DR, etc. etc.

[crenca]

6 hours ago, mcgillroy said:

 

 

I don't think it's that easy. Brian is questioning the audiophile trope of the live-event is the reference point of a recording.

 

 

 

Audiophiles like to objectify their aesthetic preferences via DR-values. But perhaps DR is a flawed metric and there should be a honest discussion about it's merits, shortcomings and alternatives.

 

Your post, at least to me, simply reinforces the need to reference a live analogue when judging fidelity.  Of course a recording, photograph, etc. is not the "real thing" but we already know this and Brian is pushing the point as if we don't.  However, we use the live analogue to judge said recording/photo with.  If it is to be judged separately, as some ephemeral "art" then Brian is right and niether DR or anything else matters because it is wholly subjective.

 

As to your last excellent point, someone up stream posted this article which I found useful:

 

https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/dynamic-range-loudness-war

[Samuel T Cogley]

16 minutes ago, crenca said:

 

Your post, at least to me, simply reinforces the need to reference a live analogue when judging fidelity.  Of course a recording, photograph, etc. is not the "real thing" but we already know this and Brian is pushing the point as if we don't.  However, we use the live analogue to judge said recording/photo with.  If it is to be judged separately, as some ephemeral "art" then Brian is right and niether DR or anything else matters because it is wholly subjective.

 

As to your last excellent point, someone up stream posted this article which I found useful:

 

https://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/dynamic-range-loudness-war

 

This is really good and breaks down the issues from the perspective of the mastering process.  Limiting is not new.  An example I always use is Phil Spector and the The Wall Of Sound.  That stuff was mastered for AM radio.

 

And depending on how much limiting was used during the track creation and mixdown process, it's possible to get to a "competitive" target loudness without much additional peak limiting.

 

One of the things I've never seen discussed among mastering engineers who "live in the loud" is what target loudness they're shooting for?  Is it -10LUFS?  -8?  There is such a thing as too much loudness boost (and the necessary peak limiting to prevent clipping).  But what is that threshold?  What is the level of loudness that the loudness advocates deem "too high"?

 

[Samuel T Cogley]

2 hours ago, Shadders said:

Hi,

Whatever happens, the industry will not go the route unless there is money in it.

Perhaps they should take a leaf from the video world - offer HDR - High Dynamic Range as per the latest TV's.

I cannot see the entire CD being HDR, but remixed HDR tracks using spare space, would work - same cost, added value, which may then become the new "in vogue".

If the record labels realised this has the potential to sell more CD's, then it will be worth the slight extra effort.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

Picture quality and sound quality are treated differently in western culture.  And even on the picture side, there's all kinds of technology that distorts (motion interpolators, gradient smoothing, etc.) the picture in a way that some find pleasing, but would not be characterized as "fidelity" to the original image.

 

The crux of the argument that Mr. Lucey is advocating is that "sounds good" is what he gets to decide, free from any restrictions of "fidelity".  Any complaints from audiophiles can be safely ignored because they (according to Mr. Lucey) are the 1%, armchair quarterbacks, etc.

 

Does loud sell?  Advertisers on TV certainly think so.  But with loudness leveling taking hold in streaming services, loudness will matter much less as everything will be the same loudness.  And the mastering will have to take into account downstream processing and leave enough overhead for it.  That will drive down the loudness in the mastering stage.  But it's a slow roll.  There's still plenty of loud stuff out there.  Just look at the MQA catalog. 

 

 

 

[The Computer Audiophile]

I finally figured out the loudness wars. It's the industry's way of job security. Think about all those remasters that will be needed down the road. 

 

Oh, you actually like dynamic range? We can fix that for $25 :~)

[Abtr]

7 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

... DR is meaningless to musical value.  Old music has more DR.  be old if you want to be stuck.  Sad for you but your life.

 

Isn't it reasonable to presume that (very) compressed music is (much) easier and cheaper to record and mix (not necessarily master) than less compressed music and that this is a factor in the total number of loud 'modern' music releases? If it is your business to fix overly compressed music and make it sound as good as possible (I believe you said 200 albums a year), then you are not exactly the most unbiased person to comment on the musical value of high DR..

[fiske]

8 hours ago, Brian Lucey said:

 

99% of modern music is loud.  Doesn't make it better OR WORSE.   It's different.  Equal.  Valuable.

 

This is is one of the reasons I don't listen very much to "modern" music. It's not equal and will only last a year.

My hope is that f.ex EDM goes away in a few years.  I know. I am not modern. But, who cares. 

Many like EDM and it's part of the modern music. Me myself do not like it. Mainly because I am not able to listen to it for a very long time.

I like to listen to an album on my gear and love it when I feel in my heart and soul that the music has been loved by those who made it and also understood by does who produced and mastered the album.

DR is just an indicator and can give a guidance if it's squueeezed or not (nothing more).

 

In addition I don't think the audiophile community is 1%. Maybe divide it by 10 or 100. We are the few and the proud .

We like what sounds good to us. And we buy stuff compared to those who only stream.

I believe you would find that we are a very good revenue base and have many copies of the same album Just to be sure we don't miss a great opportunity to have the "best" version of an album.

 

[Shadders]

2 hours ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

 

Picture quality and sound quality are treated differently in western culture.  And even on the picture side, there's all kinds of technology that distorts (motion interpolators, gradient smoothing, etc.) the picture in a way that some find pleasing, but would not be characterized as "fidelity" to the original image.

 

The crux of the argument that Mr. Lucey is advocating is that "sounds good" is what he gets to decide, free from any restrictions of "fidelity".  Any complaints from audiophiles can be safely ignored because they (according to Mr. Lucey) are the 1%, armchair quarterbacks, etc.

 

Does loud sell?  Advertisers on TV certainly think so.  But with loudness leveling taking hold in streaming services, loudness will matter much less as everything will be the same loudness.  And the mastering will have to take into account downstream processing and leave enough overhead for it.  That will drive down the loudness in the mastering stage.  But it's a slow roll.  There's still plenty of loud stuff out there.  Just look at the MQA catalog. 

Hi Samuel,

I understand that video and audio are different in the public's perception, and each have their own processing methods.

My proposal is that audio picks up on the HDR bandwagon, stating that on the same CD are HDR versions of the same single songs.

I think the changes with HDR will probably be better received than MQA, since HDR changes will be more pronounced.

Regards,

Shadders.

[Samuel T Cogley]

3 minutes ago, Shadders said:

Hi Samuel,

I understand that video and audio are different in the public's perception, and each have their own processing methods.

My proposal is that audio picks up on the HDR bandwagon, stating that on the same CD are HDR versions of the same single songs.

I think the changes with HDR will probably be better received than MQA, since HDR changes will be more pronounced.

Regards,

Shadders.

 

I hope you're right.  But it seems like advances in consumer video viewing (or audio listening) are always driven by the equipment manufacturers, and never by consumers.

 

HDR video content (if done properly and displayed on the right gear) can be stunning when compared to the color gamuts of old.  "HDR audio" is only really convenient to listen to in a very quiet room with expensive gear (unless you enjoy fidgeting with the volume knob constantly).  And really, the obvious source material for "HDR audio" would be classical.  That's grandpa music for sure.

 

[PeterSt]

So ... I just listened to the whole concert of Yello "Live in Berlin". Uhm, in MQA. Compared underway to non-MQA, but I shut that off fairly quickly. Notice that the MQA is 24/48 only. So nothing really upsampled.

 

Btw, I don't know who is so stupid to upload it to Tidal while we planned to go to the concert on Dec. 9 in Köln. But we will still go. It is too G-D good.

Of course when there, we will ask for the MQA version of the concert. And then :

 

Some Boris & Co will ask me : PeterSt boy, what the heck are you talking about. My response : Yeah, I saw that your MQA LED is Green. So you won't really now about it, right ?

 

PS: Compresses 3dB less than my average. And we know about the sub-low of Yello, right ? and sub-low should dictate the DR (in technical sense).

 

 

 

[Don Hills]

2 hours ago, The Computer Audiophile said:

I finally figured out the loudness wars. It's the industry's way of job security. Think about all those remasters that will be needed down the road.  ...

 

I realise you're speaking partly in jest, but it's a serious problem. You can slam music, but you can't un-slam it again. Remastering for more dynamic range assumes that the original 2-track is available and hasn't been slammed by the mix engineer before being sent to mastering. If that isn't the case, you have to hope that the original multi-tracks are available for re-mixing. I fear there will be a significant amount of current music that will be unrecoverable if the fashion changes back to dynamic music.

 

 

[Abtr]

24 minutes ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

... And really, the obvious source material for "HDR audio" would be classical.  That's grandpa music for sure.

I do disagree. IME, any type of music can benefit from high DR.