Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Glenn Richards wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
(generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?

You can't generalise. Indeed in my experience this isn't the case - but
then I stopped buying LPs when I got my first CD player. This 'loudness
wars' thingie with CD mastering is relatively recent and mainly applies to
some pop releases.

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)

But then there are the inherent problems with vinyl which no mastering can
get round. So you're not starting from an even playing field.


Sadly, the loudness stupidity isn't just limited to pop releases. Over
the weekend, I was making some measurements, and decided to leave my
bitstream analyser connected whilst listening to music. I was astounded
at how many of my CDs regularly clip. Amy Winehouse "Frank" lights the
0dBFS light on almost every beat, Diana Krall Love Scenes clips often
per song, as does Norah Jones. My early CDs like Dire Straits keep a
good 3dB headroom, whilst Chesky's Valerie Joyce had 6dB headroom. I
finally disconnected the analyser before even more of my CDs upset me.

I just don't understand why these sorts of CDs need to be mastered into
clipping. I can understand a CD being normalised to 0dBFS, but that
would mean one hit at 0dBFS once per CD, or at worse once per track, if
tracks are mastered individually. There's just no excuse for it.

However, try as I might, I can't hear the clipping in the Diana Krall
and Norah Jones, even sighted, knowing when it takes place. The Amy
Winehouse is , however, very obvious.

S.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:12:27 +0000, Serge Auckland
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Glenn Richards wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:

Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
(generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?

You can't generalise. Indeed in my experience this isn't the case - but
then I stopped buying LPs when I got my first CD player. This 'loudness
wars' thingie with CD mastering is relatively recent and mainly applies to
some pop releases.

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)

But then there are the inherent problems with vinyl which no mastering can
get round. So you're not starting from an even playing field.


Sadly, the loudness stupidity isn't just limited to pop releases. Over
the weekend, I was making some measurements, and decided to leave my
bitstream analyser connected whilst listening to music. I was astounded
at how many of my CDs regularly clip. Amy Winehouse "Frank" lights the
0dBFS light on almost every beat, Diana Krall Love Scenes clips often
per song, as does Norah Jones. My early CDs like Dire Straits keep a
good 3dB headroom, whilst Chesky's Valerie Joyce had 6dB headroom. I
finally disconnected the analyser before even more of my CDs upset me.

I just don't understand why these sorts of CDs need to be mastered into
clipping. I can understand a CD being normalised to 0dBFS, but that
would mean one hit at 0dBFS once per CD, or at worse once per track, if
tracks are mastered individually. There's just no excuse for it.

However, try as I might, I can't hear the clipping in the Diana Krall
and Norah Jones, even sighted, knowing when it takes place. The Amy
Winehouse is , however, very obvious.

S.



Do remember that lighting the top bit light does not necessarily imply
clipping - it is just another value, and if the signal isn't trying to
go beyond that, it hasn't clipped.

Pop recordings use heavy compression, and when this is done in the
digital domain it is quite possible to have sufficient control to peak
to the same value every time. There is no reason not to normalize the
result up to max level.

Still sounds like ****, of course.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:12:27 +0000, Serge Auckland
wrote:

Sadly, the loudness stupidity isn't just limited to pop releases. Over
the weekend, I was making some measurements, and decided to leave my
bitstream analyser connected whilst listening to music. I was astounded
at how many of my CDs regularly clip. Amy Winehouse "Frank" lights the
0dBFS light on almost every beat, Diana Krall Love Scenes clips often
per song, as does Norah Jones. My early CDs like Dire Straits keep a
good 3dB headroom, whilst Chesky's Valerie Joyce had 6dB headroom. I
finally disconnected the analyser before even more of my CDs upset me.

Using the top bit doesn't imply clipping.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Serge Auckland" wrote


I just don't understand why these sorts of CDs need to be mastered into
clipping. I can understand a CD being normalised to 0dBFS, but that would
mean one hit at 0dBFS once per CD, or at worse once per track, if tracks
are mastered individually. There's just no excuse for it.



It's called *tough ***** Serge, most CDs and DAB have become Chavmedia and
are pitched at the bulk of the music-buying *youth* market - there's no
need (or place) for 'dynamic range' when the replay system has got to
compete with the severe ambient noise of car, masses of moving/chattering
people and 'outdoor' listening - it just needs to be loud!

To give you a clue, there were a couple of double glazing fitters here a
week or so ago talking about 3 x 2kW (did I hear 4 x 2kW?) amps in cars
being not uncommon among the 'devotees' and some of their cars having spring
clips or somesuch fitted to prevent the windows being blown out, I
gather...??

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message
. uk
Arny Krueger wrote:

Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the
CD of the same album, play them both and compare the
results, they weren't really comparing the two media.
Instead, they were comparing the (generally quite
separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular
characteristics of their LP and CD playback equipment.

So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is
capable of far better quality sound than vinyl, but due
to sloppy mastering (loudness wars anyone?) vinyl
generally sounds better?

Huh?

My position is that CD is easily capable of far better sound quality than
vinyl, even when people work their butts off trying to make vinyl sound
good. Furthermore, since the CD has been the predominant mainstream method
of distributing music, music has in general sounded far better because it
was no longer cursed with the audible artifacts that are inherent in LPs.

Because it hasn't been compressed to within an inch of its life?

Hypercompression is a production technique, not an inherent property of a
distribution medium. However. the LP format has historically been more
likely to use compression, because the basic dynamic range of the LP medium
is less than that of wide dynamic range music. Thing is that even the LP
format didn't need hypercompression.

The reason that so much music is hypercompressed today is because people no
longer predominately listen to music as their sole activity. Music is more
likely than ever to be listened to while the listener is doing something
else that is more important to them. Therefore, dynamic range is a detriment
to many listener's use of music.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Keith G" wrote in message


Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting,
there are two CD racks full of the sort stuff I like to
(and do) play. It is though they do not exist - I *never*
think to play them! I just looked, there is even a 'boxed
set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not disturb' and it
hasn't been - it's still sealed in a cellophane wrapper!!

If somehow a set of CD's like 'Smooth Classics FM' was in my house, it would
probably stay in the wrapper - on the grounds that I don't have time to
listen to boring music. Wouldn't matter what format - boring music is boring
music no matter what the format.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

Don Pearce wrote:
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 12:12:27 +0000, Serge Auckland
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Glenn Richards wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
Back in the 1980s when people used to buy the LP and the CD of the
same album, play them both and compare the results, they weren't
really comparing the two media. Instead, they were comparing the
(generally quite separate) mastering decisions--EQ, limiting,
etc.--behind the two products, plus the particular characteristics of
their LP and CD playback equipment.
So what that posting is basically saying is that CD is capable of far
better quality sound than vinyl, but due to sloppy mastering (loudness
wars anyone?) vinyl generally sounds better? Because it hasn't been
compressed to within an inch of its life?
You can't generalise. Indeed in my experience this isn't the case - but
then I stopped buying LPs when I got my first CD player. This 'loudness
wars' thingie with CD mastering is relatively recent and mainly applies to
some pop releases.

(Bit of a vinyl fan myself actually...)
But then there are the inherent problems with vinyl which no mastering can
get round. So you're not starting from an even playing field.

Sadly, the loudness stupidity isn't just limited to pop releases. Over
the weekend, I was making some measurements, and decided to leave my
bitstream analyser connected whilst listening to music. I was astounded
at how many of my CDs regularly clip. Amy Winehouse "Frank" lights the
0dBFS light on almost every beat, Diana Krall Love Scenes clips often
per song, as does Norah Jones. My early CDs like Dire Straits keep a
good 3dB headroom, whilst Chesky's Valerie Joyce had 6dB headroom. I
finally disconnected the analyser before even more of my CDs upset me.

I just don't understand why these sorts of CDs need to be mastered into
clipping. I can understand a CD being normalised to 0dBFS, but that
would mean one hit at 0dBFS once per CD, or at worse once per track, if
tracks are mastered individually. There's just no excuse for it.

However, try as I might, I can't hear the clipping in the Diana Krall
and Norah Jones, even sighted, knowing when it takes place. The Amy
Winehouse is , however, very obvious.

S.



Do remember that lighting the top bit light does not necessarily imply
clipping - it is just another value, and if the signal isn't trying to
go beyond that, it hasn't clipped.

Pop recordings use heavy compression, and when this is done in the
digital domain it is quite possible to have sufficient control to peak
to the same value every time. There is no reason not to normalize the
result up to max level.

Still sounds like ****, of course.

d


Don, I agree that hitting 0dBFS doesn't necessarily mean clipping, but
displaying the waveform on a 'scope looks awfully like clipping to me,
on more than one CD. I estimate from extending the slopes of the
waveform before and after clipping that it can go some 2-3dB into
clipping.

My main complaint is not that's it's done on pop recordings, but that
it's done on jazz or other less loudness-concious material where I feel
it's completely unnecessary to compress, digitally or otherwise. It
didn't seem to be done in the eighties before digital signal processors
became available, (analogue compression was obviously used, but the
converted digital signal still had some headroom left) it just seems to
me that as they have the tools, they feel the need to use them even
where it is not needed.

Grumpy old man mode off.

S.

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
[snip]

I just don't understand why these sorts of CDs need to be mastered into
clipping. I can understand a CD being normalised to 0dBFS, but that
would mean one hit at 0dBFS once per CD, or at worse once per track, if
tracks are mastered individually. There's just no excuse for it.

ahem Anyone in the UK who is interested in this may find the December
issue of 'Hi Fi News' worth a read. Should be out in a couple of weeks.
:-)

Note also that even just one sample of a sequence at or near the 0dBFS
level may mean a reconstructed waveform with an excusion *above* this.


However, try as I might, I can't hear the clipping in the Diana Krall
and Norah Jones, even sighted, knowing when it takes place. The Amy
Winehouse is , however, very obvious.

As an experiment, I made up a 'test CD' a while ago to try on some friends
and colleagues. This consists of a set of tracks of various types of music
where the original peaks well below 0dB, and versions I deliberately
clipped. Apart from the clipped sections the two versions of each example
are sample-by-sample the same.

It has been interesting to see how hard/easy people have found identifying
the clipped version to be. :-)

This seems to agree with something I discovered 20+ years ago. When I
designed the Armstrong 730/732 amps I fitted a clipping indicator. It
turned out to be quite difficult to hear the clipping in many cases -
although admitted this is at levels well over 200Wpc so I am not sure what
the speakers (or ears!) were doing in some cases at these levels in a
normal UK domestic situation. 8-]

Do remember that lighting the top bit light does not necessarily imply
clipping - it is just another value, and if the signal isn't trying to
go beyond that, it hasn't clipped.

Pop recordings use heavy compression, and when this is done in the
digital domain it is quite possible to have sufficient control to peak
to the same value every time. There is no reason not to normalize the
result up to max level.

Alas, my recent experience confirms that a number of CDs have successions
of samples well within 0.05dB or so of the peak values allowed on CD-A.
Level compression seems much more common, but flat-top clipping seems far
from rare. As you say, this seems utterly insane when many rock/pop CDs
squash the sound into a range of about 10dB - on a medium that should be
able to offer a range over a million times greater!

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message


Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting,
there are two CD racks full of the sort stuff I like to
(and do) play. It is though they do not exist - I *never*
think to play them! I just looked, there is even a 'boxed
set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not disturb' and it
hasn't been - it's still sealed in a cellophane wrapper!!

If somehow a set of CD's like 'Smooth Classics FM' was in my house, it
would probably stay in the wrapper - on the grounds that I don't have time
to listen to boring music. Wouldn't matter what format - boring music is
boring music no matter what the format.



Boring?

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/smoothclassics.JPG

??

You're a recordist, aren't you?

What's the matter with you? - There's nothing here a little *unison
clapping* and tambourine overdub wouldn't fix.....

:-)


(Well worth letting him out of the ****ter for that one!!)

Tee hee.... :-)

Independent View Of LP versus CD
 

"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
. ..
"Keith G" wrote in message


Almost within touching distance of where I'm sitting,
there are two CD racks full of the sort stuff I like to
(and do) play. It is though they do not exist - I
*never* think to play them! I just looked, there is
even a 'boxed set' called 'Smooth Classics FM, do not
disturb' and it hasn't been - it's still sealed in a
cellophane wrapper!!

If somehow a set of CD's like 'Smooth Classics FM' was
in my house, it would probably stay in the wrapper - on
the grounds that I don't have time to listen to boring
music. Wouldn't matter what format - boring music is
boring music no matter what the format.



Boring?

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/smoothclassics.JPG

??

Yeah, a collection of overplayed warhorses is boring.

You're a recordist, aren't you?

Yeah,

What's the matter with you? - There's nothing here a
little *unison clapping* and tambourine overdub wouldn't
fix.....

What are you talking about? It's clear you don't know.