Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
darkshade 
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
|
 Posted: December 27 2011 at 22:37 |
 Kashmir75 wrote:
If the music is too loud, you're TOO OLD |
So if the music is too loud and your brand new surround sound sound system speakers starts buzzing and clipping, are they too old?
|
|
|
 |
zumacraig
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 10 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1301
|
Posted: January 09 2012 at 10:59 |
thehallway wrote:
Dean wrote:
I think it's got better over the past ten years or so (and by better I mean less compression and more dynamics) - the trend is changing and in part this is due to more artists doing their own mastering and self-releasing material. I think in time overcompression will go the way of the gated snare drum, and take autotune with it. |
I would love for you to be right, but even if you are, it will be a slow process. I mean, how long will this anti-trend take to permeate into the music of [insert name of current pop singer we love to hate here]?? Probably half of all the albums that currently dominate the UK charts are written and produced by businessmen. Do they care about dynamic range? Only if it increases sales. Does it increase sales? Not at all. Even people looking for dynamic range will still by albums based on a whole load of other factors first.
Depressing, sorry! |
i would have bought so much more music in the 80s if it wasn't for the dreaded 'gated snare'. i'm concerned about the loudness war too. Rush is a big concern. even S&A was over compressed. luckily most prog bands are putting stuff out on their own the masters don't into the wrong hands.
roadrunner compresses their records. not sure about inside/out. weren't the new genesis remasters compressed to sh*t? how about the new floyd?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 09 2012 at 13:47 |
zumacraig wrote:
i would have bought so much more music in the 80s if it wasn't for the dreaded 'gated snare'. i'm concerned about the loudness war too. Rush is a big concern. even S&A was over compressed. luckily most prog bands are putting stuff out on their own the masters don't into the wrong hands.
roadrunner compresses their records. not sure about inside/out. weren't the new genesis remasters compressed to sh*t? how about the new floyd? |
Looking at the new (2011) remaster of Wish You Were Here, Shine On (Parts I-V) returns a DR (Dynamic Range) value of 11 compared to 13 for the 1992 remastered version. Both figures can be regarded as "very good" and do not indicate over compression
Comparing the two waveforms side-by-side visually in Audacity the volume envelopes are near-identical, with no apparent clipping and a good differentiation between soft and loud passages, indicating that the difference between DR of 11 and a DR of 13 is simply down to the mix and not the compression.
Personally I think the 2011 version sounds "better", but that's a purely subjective assessment.
|
|
What?
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: January 09 2012 at 15:32 |
Dean wrote:
zumacraig wrote:
i would have bought so much more music in the 80s if it wasn't for the dreaded 'gated snare'. i'm concerned about the loudness war too. Rush is a big concern. even S&A was over compressed. luckily most prog bands are putting stuff out on their own the masters don't into the wrong hands.
roadrunner compresses their records. not sure about inside/out. weren't the new genesis remasters compressed to sh*t? how about the new floyd? |
Looking at the new (2011) remaster of Wish You Were Here, Shine On (Parts I-V) returns a DR (Dynamic Range) value of 11 compared to 13 for the 1992 remastered version. Both figures can be regarded as "very good" and do not indicate over compression
Comparing the two waveforms side-by-side visually in Audacity the volume envelopes are near-identical, with no apparent clipping and a good differentiation between soft and loud passages, indicating that the difference between DR of 11 and a DR of 13 is simply down to the mix and not the compression.
Personally I think the 2011 version sounds "better", but that's a purely subjective assessment. |
I'm thinking there's no need for me to engage in that exercise, but I'm glad you did even if it came to an non-conclusive evaluation.
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
zumacraig
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 10 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1301
|
Posted: January 09 2012 at 19:40 |
Dean wrote:
zumacraig wrote:
i would have bought so much more music in the 80s if it wasn't for the dreaded 'gated snare'. i'm concerned about the loudness war too. Rush is a big concern. even S&A was over compressed. luckily most prog bands are putting stuff out on their own the masters don't into the wrong hands.
roadrunner compresses their records. not sure about inside/out. weren't the new genesis remasters compressed to sh*t? how about the new floyd? |
Looking at the new (2011) remaster of Wish You Were Here, Shine On (Parts I-V) returns a DR (Dynamic Range) value of 11 compared to 13 for the 1992 remastered version. Both figures can be regarded as "very good" and do not indicate over compression
Comparing the two waveforms side-by-side visually in Audacity the volume envelopes are near-identical, with no apparent clipping and a good differentiation between soft and loud passages, indicating that the difference between DR of 11 and a DR of 13 is simply down to the mix and not the compression.
Personally I think the 2011 version sounds "better", but that's a purely subjective assessment. |
awesome response. thanks so much. just the info i was looking for. gonna pick some of these up then. 
|
|
SandCastleVirtue
Forum Newbie
Joined: October 20 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 13
|
Posted: January 12 2012 at 14:52 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
Dean wrote:
zumacraig wrote:
i would have bought so much more music in the 80s if it wasn't for the dreaded 'gated snare'. i'm concerned about the loudness war too. Rush is a big concern. even S&A was over compressed. luckily most prog bands are putting stuff out on their own the masters don't into the wrong hands.
roadrunner compresses their records. not sure about inside/out. weren't the new genesis remasters compressed to sh*t? how about the new floyd? |
Looking at the new (2011) remaster of Wish You Were Here, Shine On (Parts I-V) returns a DR (Dynamic Range) value of 11 compared to 13 for the 1992 remastered version. Both figures can be regarded as "very good" and do not indicate over compression
Comparing the two waveforms side-by-side visually in Audacity the volume envelopes are near-identical, with no apparent clipping and a good differentiation between soft and loud passages, indicating that the difference between DR of 11 and a DR of 13 is simply down to the mix and not the compression.
Personally I think the 2011 version sounds "better", but that's a purely subjective assessment. |
I'm thinking there's no need for me to engage in that exercise, but I'm glad you did even if it came to an non-conclusive evaluation.
|
Any DR value that's 8 and over is great and isn't over-compressed in my opinion. What I find ridiculous is when audiophiles get their panties in a bunch if a remaster loses one or two DR points and immediately call it "unlistenable."
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: January 12 2012 at 16:06 |
SandCastleVirtue wrote:
Slartibartfast wrote:
Dean wrote:
zumacraig wrote:
i would have bought so much more music in the 80s if it wasn't for the dreaded 'gated snare'. i'm concerned about the loudness war too. Rush is a big concern. even S&A was over compressed. luckily most prog bands are putting stuff out on their own the masters don't into the wrong hands.
roadrunner compresses their records. not sure about inside/out. weren't the new genesis remasters compressed to sh*t? how about the new floyd? |
Looking at the new (2011) remaster of Wish You Were Here, Shine On (Parts I-V) returns a DR (Dynamic Range) value of 11 compared to 13 for the 1992 remastered version. Both figures can be regarded as "very good" and do not indicate over compression
Comparing the two waveforms side-by-side visually in Audacity the volume envelopes are near-identical, with no apparent clipping and a good differentiation between soft and loud passages, indicating that the difference between DR of 11 and a DR of 13 is simply down to the mix and not the compression.
Personally I think the 2011 version sounds "better", but that's a purely subjective assessment. |
I'm thinking there's no need for me to engage in that exercise, but I'm glad you did even if it came to an non-conclusive evaluation.
|
Any DR value that's 8 and over is great and isn't over-compressed in my opinion. What I find ridiculous is when audiophiles get their panties in a bunch if a remaster loses one or two DR points and immediately call it "unlistenable." |
|
|
What?
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Prog rock and the loudness war
