Another ruined one (MartinLogan demo)

Serendipity

Most people that I know have "Sound Check" enabled on their iPod and iTunes, which IMO renders the loudness war useless. So the louder songs get turned down and the quieter songs turned up, that's the way iTunes automatic volume leveling works. Right now I'm listening to Lori McKenna - Pour and it's a very dynamic recording, sounds great on the HiFi but too quiet in the car compared to other recordings. So I put it through iTunes "Sound Check" when I burned it to CD, and it's a little louder. So when I skip from a quality folk or Jazz or classical recording I don't get blasted in the car when the track goes to Bon Jovi - It's My Life.

Back to the point, there are technical reasons for dynamic range compression such as ensuring the farthest coverage on radio and the best signal to noise ratio on receivers (for example, when driving under a bridge) to reduce static. I recently travelled a 2,700 mile road trip cross country and noticed that many country radio stations in the Midwest have more dynamic sounding signals; however, they don't seem as "loud" and compressed as NY and LA radio stations playing the Top 40. From my experience, the louder stations seem to do better when on the fringe of their range, such as when passing under a bridge 60 miles away from a 5kW station.

Anyways, all I know is I get to choose the gear that goes into my rigs, and when it comes to listening to compressed music while doing yard work, nothing beats the backyard speakers being driven by a Denon A/V receiver set to Direct mode. And when I want to listen to quality music, such as a Sarah McLachlan CD, I have the Polk RT35i's and the Definitive towers to listen to (two rigs). Then for background music before going to sleep, I can chill out to the radio on the Polk inwalls and not miss a beat.

Anthony Hinton

treitz3 wrote: »

The hottest selling album of last year, Adele's 21 has the same issue. Sounds great in the car with the windows rolled down but if you put in any type of worthwhile system, it sounds horrible.

Tom

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that.

treitz3

There is no way that you could be. There have been many complaints with the sound quality and complete lack of dynamics with regards to that album. Offered below is a short, unprofessional review of Adele's 21 that I have posted elsewhere. It reflects my honest opinion...

Frank wrote:

Tom, what exactly is the "problem" from your point of view; in other words what are the artifacts that are wrong, that are equivalent to distortion for you? <snip>...just trying to get to a common language, understanding of how people perceive sound, in terms of how it's recorded and reproduced.

treitz3 wrote:

Hey Frank, I had some time to listen to up to song 5. I had to turn it off after that and put in something that sounded a bit more pleasing to these ears. I dig her music but it sounds better in the car with a boatload of ambient noise and I'll reserve listening to it again for just that. Listening to it in the car. Anyhoo, at a volume level of about 8:30 [which was about all I could stand] on the dial, I gave her CD another whirl so that I could offer my observations to you. Forgive my way of typing this out. I just started writing things down on a piece of paper and whatever hit my fancy to write down is how it's gonna be offered in this observation.

First off, it's mixed hot. There are little to no dynamics in the recording whatsoever. The bass riffs hit too hard with too much unnatural reverb or butchering, maybe both. The background singers sound fake at times. There is very little detail and things just sound congested. Nothing was really palpable. Horrible imaging when compared to a well recorded album. Impact?.....I don't think they know the definition or that it even exists. I can detect a slight noise during the recording and the noise floor on certain instruments and singers is high. The piano sounds like arse and is not at all accurate with no detail or naturalness to it at all, whether it is played by itself our during a busy passage.

In general, there is very little stereo separation and none of the voices sound natural. In fact, nothing really sounds real and it sounds as if it is restricted. There are no microdynamics, subtleties or inner detail, let alone texture to most everything in the recording. There is an unnatural balance of frequencies and absolutely no definition in the drums. At times, I wonder if they actually used a drum or if they did, what the hell was wrong with them? No natural rolloff of many instruments and speaking of the instruments, at times they are in front of Adele. I don't understand why she's so far back sometimes. The bass guitar has no texture whatsoever, you hear the notes [not very clear] but that's about all you get. One last thing. It's like there is no crescendo throughout the first 5 songs. Everything seems to be on or at the same level. Overall, a very bad recording.

Simply comparing it to the Sarah McGlachlin CD I was listening too last night, Adele's recording is a joke. Sarah's piano was very fluid, natural, had a seemingly infinite amount of subtleties, nuances, texture, rolloff and you could even hear when the pedal was lifted up and down...and this happened whether or not the piano was the only thing playing or the passage was a busy one.

Interesting read here, lots of credit went into the recording and mixing. "Dynamics", according to Tom Elmhirst, was the main issue with the song "Rolling in the Deep". Maybe Tom Elmhirst should get Burmester's CD and listen to Hugh Masekela's "Stimela" and find out what dynamics really are.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep11/articles/it-0911.htm

Tom

Serendipity

Adele's 21 is recorded to slam the listener with sound, just like a Las Vegas show with multi-band compressors, limiters, heavy use of EQ, and subharmonic synthesizers to "stun" the listener. Next time you are in Vegas, just look at the sound engineer's booth and you will see an entire rack of DSP processors, literally. Yanni said at his Mandalay Bay concert something along the lines of, "you take the instruments, separate them, add each to the mix, then amplify it - and you get punch."

But then again what do I know. I have an Electrical Engineering degree but my experience with DSP processors is limited (outside of school). Just basing this on what I've seen at shows...

txcoastal1

Anthony Hinton wrote: »

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that.

21 was the first CD I played for my wife when I setup my new 2chnl ...I should have listened to it first.

We got half way through the 1st song and she thought it was ridiculous that I spent that kinda money on my system, had to redeem my system by playing "Rumours" to get her to understand.

There are a ton of horrible recordings...and that's a shame

treitz3

txcoastal1 wrote: »

21 was the first CD I played for my wife when I setup my new 2chnl ...I should have listened to it first. We got half way through the 1st song and she thought it was ridiculous that I spent that kinda money on my system, had to redeem my system by playing "Rumours" to get her to understand.

Ouch! I'd be thinking the same exact thing if I were [hypothetically speaking, of course] your wife and I was put into that situation. Nice redemption, though. Good save.

Tom

Serendipity

Adele - 21 is recorded with a certain audience in mind: the vocals are loud, the drums are loud, the piano is loud, the background music is competing with the vocals, etc. Once the recording has been compressed, there's no way it's going to sound good on a decent rig that is detailed and revealing. It's recorded for the same crowd that wants to get hammered with sound every second of a song, kind of like when you go to a Monster Truck show, the announcer is screaming over the 100+dB monster trucks with excessive reverb, max compression, and sound FX to please the crowd.

treitz3

Serendipity wrote: »

....It's recorded for the same crowd that wants to get hammered with sound every second of a song, kind of like when you go to a Monster Truck show, the announcer is screaming over the 100+dB monster trucks with excessive reverb, max compression, and sound FX to please the crowd.

I don't listen to music in an environment like this. In fact, I try to suppress any and all unwanted noise in my living room while listening. That way, the music just seems to come from nowhere and it blooms into a stage that can envelope you into the music itself. What they have done is permanently butcher this talented young ladies talent. If ever there was a chance for beauty, this was it. Thanks to Tom Elmhirst, everybody in the world can now enjoy....ah, never mind. I'll just say that I'd like to take him out for a long walk down by the river.

He should just go find another avocation before he has a chance to destroy anything else.

Tom

mdaudioguy

Serendipity wrote: »

Interesting. I watched the video and it seems like dynamic range compression is used to make a song sound louder, which may be to stand out from other CD's in a jukebox or for radio play, but it almost seems as if The Script chose that level of compression to convey a level of emotion and energy in the song.

Serendipity wrote: »

I understand your premise, and that overcompression is ruining the sound quality of music these days. However, modern music has a sort of "energy" to it and emotion that comes with the compression.

I'm having trouble with your premise that compression levels are some kind of intentional artistic choice used to convey emotion. I just don't think that really factors into it.

Serendipity

mdaudioguy wrote: »

I'm having trouble with your premise that compression levels are some kind of intentional artistic choice used to convey emotion. I just don't think that really factors into it.

That's just how I feel. Typcially we associate loud, compressed sounds with "busy," similar to how a crowded, noisy restaurant is "busy" or a packed subway car screeching on the rails is "busy". It heightens your senses, and makes you feel as if you are in the middle of the situation. Many movies use this technique, such as in the movie Crash when Lara gets shot and the heavily compressed music plays over all the screaming in the scene. I've also noticed it quite often in divorce scenes in movies.

unc2701

One answer is:
BUY
VINYL

Not always, but a good bit of the time the vinyl mix doesn't have the dynamic range compression- check out the numbers for Adele's 21 on the dynamic range database; notice that the vinyl has way better numbers?

There are a few reasons for this- they know you won't play it in a car; if you over-compress vinyl, the needle will jump the groove, they're going for the audiophile crowd... but it's always worth a shot it there's an album you like that's just too hot on CD.

markmarc

Another part of the "21" recording mess comes from the low ceiling living room where it was recorded. Adele's vocal instrument is too powerful to record in such a space. I look forward to the day when Mobile High Fidelity Labs can get access to the master tapes and fix this travesty.

Personally, I wish recording engineers would take responsibility and place a compression-level rating on every album/cd.

It's important to note that even small amounts of compression have been used in recordings since the 1930's. Sadly, the abusive use came into vogue in the past 10-15 years.

zingo

It's so sad when good musicians are recorded poorly. I know they don't have any say in it, but I would be very mad if I recorded an album, played it back, and realized, "I sound much better than this recording."

Nhpm510

Anthony Hinton wrote: »

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that.

+1, Amen

Nhpm510

Op, So bottom line, don't judge good speakers with an inferior recording be they Polk, MLs or insert name here.

Nhpm510

Serendipity wrote: »

Most people that I know have "Sound Check" enabled on their iPod and iTunes, which IMO renders the loudness war useless. So the louder songs get turned down and the quieter songs turned up, that's the way iTunes automatic volume leveling works. Right now I'm listening to Lori McKenna - Pour and it's a very dynamic recording, sounds great on the HiFi but too quiet in the car compared to other recordings. So I put it through iTunes "Sound Check" when I burned it to CD, and it's a little louder. So when I skip from a quality folk or Jazz or classical recording I don't get blasted in the car when the track goes to Bon Jovi - It's My Life.

Back to the point, there are technical reasons for dynamic range compression such as ensuring the farthest coverage on radio and the best signal to noise ratio on receivers (for example, when driving under a bridge) to reduce static. I recently travelled a 2,700 mile road trip cross country and noticed that many country radio stations in the Midwest have more dynamic sounding signals; however, they don't seem as "loud" and compressed as NY and LA radio stations playing the Top 40. From my experience, the louder stations seem to do better when on the fringe of their range, such as when passing under a bridge 60 miles away from a 5kW station.

Anyways, all I know is I get to choose the gear that goes into my rigs, and when it comes to listening to compressed music while doing yard work, nothing beats the backyard speakers being driven by a Denon A/V receiver set to Direct mode. And when I want to listen to quality music, such as a Sarah McLachlan CD, I have the Polk RT35i's and the Definitive towers to listen to (two rigs). Then for background music before going to sleep, I can chill out to the radio on the Polk inwalls and not miss a beat.

So does this Dynamic Range Compression Does apply with the new Hd radio?

I share your multi-system approach. Does a golfer have just one club?

Nhpm510

Oops-double post. Sorry.

Serendipity

Nhpm510 wrote: »

So does this Dynamic Range Compression Does apply with the new Hd radio?

I share your multi-system approach. Does a golfer have just one club?

Yes, HD Radio is just as compressed as regular FM and actually sounds worse on a high-end head unit, because it shows the flaws of the signal vs. a cheap car stereo. So a $1200 Alpine / Kenwood / Pioneer can actually be more fatiguing on radio vs. a $99 JVC head unit. Trust me, I've experienced this first hand.

SCompRacer

unc2701 wrote: »

One answer is:
BUY
VINYL

Sound advice, thanks!:cheesygrin:

treitz3

Nhpm510 wrote:

Op, So bottom line, don't judge good speakers with an inferior recording be they Polk, MLs or insert name here.

Absolutely, Nhpm510. I would also add that one should not judge a speaker set or any other piece of gear with only one selection. Your 2nd ML demo failed due to a bad recording, not because of the speakers or associated gear. One could audition the speakers in this room [seen below] that are backed by top notch equipment and come to the same conclusion you did if they used the same recording. That being an epic FAIL.



My advice? Start a reference collection of albums or songs that are well to superbly recorded. Choose selections for certain aspects of the reproduction effort that you would like to bridge the gap between reproduced music and that which you can hear in a live performance [amplified or unamplified]. Use these selections to make your observations. Using the selection you choose was akin to slapping a Yugo engine in a Ferrari and turning around after the demo and posting that your observations of the performance was bad.

Tom

tonyb

Nhpm510 wrote: »

As the owner of ML electro-stats I 'll say they are very revealing and enjoyable speakers for music.
Source material is important, garbage in, garbage out.

Today's over processed "music" is designed for listening with .25 cent earbuds over the rush hour commute.

Bingo.....I like ML speaks too, but only when sitting in the sweet spot as that can be somewhat small at times. Hold on to those old well recorded redbook cd's. Most today are recorded like junk. I won't buy a new cd unless it's recorded well, and thats far and few between. Plus not too much music today is worth shelling out for.

Nhpm510

Serendipity wrote: »

Yes, HD Radio is just as compressed as regular FM and actually sounds worse on a high-end head unit, because it shows the flaws of the signal vs. a cheap car stereo. So a $1200 Alpine / Kenwood / Pioneer can actually be more fatiguing on radio vs. a $99 JVC head unit. Trust me, I've experienced this first hand.

If vinyl is the answer, alright, so then how do I keep my records from skipping while I am driving? ;-)

Face

Rip them to a disk.

Serendipity

Or buy a head unit that plays DVD-Audio. Sounds great in the car. For the records, you can rip them and play them through the HU.

Serendipity

Does anybody make a single-DIN head unit that plays DVD-Audio? I am looking at a used Ford Mustang and want to be able to play DVD-Audio in the car.

CoolJazz

Serendipity wrote: »

Back to the point, there are technical reasons for dynamic range compression such as ensuring the farthest coverage on radio and the best signal to noise ratio on receivers (for example, when driving under a bridge) to reduce static. I recently travelled a 2,700 mile road trip cross country and noticed that many country radio stations in the Midwest have more dynamic sounding signals; however, they don't seem as "loud" and compressed as NY and LA radio stations playing the Top 40. From my experience, the louder stations seem to do better when on the fringe of their range, such as when passing under a bridge 60 miles away from a 5kW station.

Denser modulation does in fact extend coverage of an AM signal. But it does not on FM. On FM, it might maybe help fool some of the stereo blend circuits...maybe. And when some of those circuits start to mono the signal, they may also start to taper down level and eventually effectively mute it. But unless some of that should be true, louder modulation signals on FM do not effect coverage area at all.

CJ

CoolJazz

mdaudioguy wrote: »

I'm having trouble with your premise that compression levels are some kind of intentional artistic choice used to convey emotion. I just don't think that really factors into it.

Oh it absolutely is part of the artist intent in some but not all music. Louder processed tends to convey more energy which fits into the emotion of much younger oriented music.

I think artist know very well what is being done to their music prior to release. But they're being paid by the labels and when the label says this is what we do to make your music sell, they don't have much way to argue differently if it's over done.

CJ

CoolJazz

My long, long term speakers were Martin Logans. Always liked them very well and listened to many systems and speakers and never heard a thing (affordable) that made me want to change. But heard nice ML demo setups at several shows and never heard them sound good enough in that environment to have bought them from what I heard. But that doesn't mean if you took them home, positioned them well and fed them with components that sound like music to you, that you'd not be extremely pleased with the result.

Part of the poor showing is the conditions any speakers get shown in when at shows and often in dealer rooms. And the fact that you probably haven't chosen the equipment and cables that are feeding them. They are revealing enough that you hear it all from the upstream. Including the music...as you experienced.

I think good systems tend to reveal that much more about the music quality. Why would you expect anything less? So I do believe it true when you hear complaints about good systems that tend to make (some) music sound bad. A lot of (current) music is treated very poorly and a good system lets you hear that!

CJ

Serendipity

CoolJazz wrote: »

Denser modulation does in fact extend coverage of an AM signal. But it does not on FM. On FM, it might maybe help fool some of the stereo blend circuits...maybe. And when some of those circuits start to mono the signal, they may also start to taper down level and eventually effectively mute it. But unless some of that should be true, louder modulation signals on FM do not effect coverage area at all.

CJ

Thanks for the correction. For some reason the more dynamically compressed stations sound like mono over FM. And the "louder" FM stations seem to lock in better on the fringe of their range. Just something I've observed.

treitz3

Well, a new post just brought this to my attention. Here's the same perfect example of dynamic compression that you pointed out as being "atrocious".

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?129822-Anybody-find-the-quality-of-Adele-21-atrocious

Do you still find a reason for dynamic compression so that you can enjoy it in the Jeep? Point being is that it ruins albums that should sound spectacular.

Tom