It's too freaking loud !!!

Never noticed this, so the CD's I have must be different.

^ Oh yes, they are louder, but thats a good thing.

Hawkwise wrote: Snow Dog wrote: ^ Oh yes, they are louder, but thats a good thing. Why  is that a good thing ?  i have volume control on my Amp if want to turn it up  dont need the record company to do it for me . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm

Edited by Snow Dog - October 29 2010 at 08:07

Hawkwise wrote: Yea i agree i don't want to get into Vinyl v CD ether i don't think that's really the issue here , the real issue is why are record company's  Mastering albums at such high volume ? I had a re mastered copy of Trick of the tail  is was terrible so harsh no warmth whats so ever  compared to the original mix i have on Vinyl, my brother had a CD of TRICK from the 80s to we compared the two the difference was   amazing with both agreed that the re master really was poor compered to the 80s Cd and the Vinyl    the dynamics where just not there just sounded so harsh on the ears.I really cant understand the need to Master the CD.'s at such high volume .

I too have both CD versions of Trick, and the vinyl, and agree the 80's CD is much better. The re-master, although far from the worst I've ever heard, sounds a little 'tampered' with to me. Those who re-master albums take the view that the listener wants everything bigger and brighter than on the original, and you'll probably find many people do. They can't please everyone so they go for the approach that they feel will appeal to the majority of listeners.

It's a shame really, but at least we still have the vinyl and earlier CD editions to keep us happy.

I have more of a problem with some CDs being too quiet. I'd like to listen to Larks Tongues In Aspic on my MP3 player on the way to work sometimes but I can't hear anything for the first 3 minutes (yes I know it's supposed to be a quiet build up but the whole album is low in volume compared to some).

I hadn't noticed the new KT Tunstall CD being that loud. My copy of HOTH is also on the quiet side.


Edited by chopper - October 29 2010 at 11:47

chopper wrote: I have more of a problem with some CDs being too quiet.

Agreed.

The thing I hate most about listening is to need to stay around the speakers to turn the volume up for the quiet parts and then running back to them to turn the volume down when the music goes up. That's not what I call "dynamics"!

Loudness is not the ONLY part of it though.  Remastering also seems to kill blending of sounds that happened on old recordings. I used to wonder why I felt my CD recordings felt different from tapes and then I found a perfect exhibit to demonstrate the issue:

Donald Fagen's IGY off vinyl:



Same song off the CD:



The original vinyl recording sounds muted and relatively unclear (though this could also be because the uploader seems to be using some sort of console to record it again for us) but is warmer and the sounds blend.  There also seems to be a healthy bias towards those sounds that should be heard more prominently and those that should submerge in the background. Digital tends to bring all of them to the fore, or at least that's how it sounds to me.  The sound movements sound more artificial and forced in the remaster compared to the vinyl recording. The rhythm section in the original recording has a real throb which feels great to listen to, that's gone missing in the remaster.  These may not be important points for all listeners but they do indicate why some people feel new recordings or remaster sound louder but more sterile.  

I don't think there's any sense in producing the music on a low volume level (and now I'm not referring to dynamics, in which it's normal to have highs and lows, according to the development of the music). How does that help? I just have to raise the volume from the speakers to the same volume I listen all my music at - the volume where I can hear what's going on. 

rogerthat wrote: But if it was produced all the way on a low volume level, you would not have to rush to turn it down because it suddenly got too loud.

No, those are indeed different things. I am not mixing these scenarios:

- the one when the music has various sound range dynamics
- the one when the music has range dynamics that are unpleasant to my listening habits
- the one when all the album is produced at a low volume level

Yes, I do have albums which are so well recorded and produced that they have amazing dynamics and variation to the sound and music, at reasonably high levels of volume. It IS possible!

rogerthat wrote: harmonium.ro wrote: rogerthat wrote: But if it was produced all the way on a low volume level, you would not have to rush to turn it down because it suddenly got too loud.  No, those are indeed different things. I am not mixing these scenarios: - the one when the music has various sound range dynamics - the one when the music has range dynamics that are unpleasant to my listening habits - the one when all the album is produced at a low volume level Yes, I do have albums which are so well recorded and produced that they have amazing dynamics and variation to the sound and music, at reasonably high levels of volume. It IS possible! I am just saying that range dynamics that feel unpleasant to you and CDs being too quiet are not the same thing.  The latter certainly reads like the third scenario in which case it would simply need to be cranked up.

That exactly what I'm saying, too.

An obvious case can emerge when you listen to different albums of the same band; for me such a case is that of Led Zeppelin. When yoy listen to I, II and III in a row, you notice that II is produced at a much lower volume than the others, and the difference is unpleasant to my ears. It's ok when I listen to it by itself and I crank up the volume, but the comparison does not favour it.