In article , Don Pearce
wrote:
On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 15:46:38 -0000, "David Looser"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote

This is true. The CD and LP markets are different.


Well, OK, why are they different? and in what way are they different?
And is there a shred of evidence that the CD market demands "louder"
than the LP market does?


Oh, no, there's no evidence of that. I think this problem exists almost
entirely within the industry itself.

I agree. As has been repeatedly discussed here, there seems to be no
assessable evidence to support the idea that - if given a free choice and
the ability to compare on an otherwise 'like for like' basis - that
excessive compression and clipping actually boost sales or produce a result
which is widely 'preferred'.

In addition the nonlinarity of LP and how that varies with level,
frequency, etc, can also affect perceived loudness.

So the way popular/rock CDs and LPs are produced seems to often be on the
basis of the industry assuming its belief system is correct. In both cases
I suspect the industry also relies on the product being such that the
listeners have no 'source' to compare with with the kind of music involved.
(cf below.)

The distinction then seems to be that CD purchasers are seen as the larger
market of those who 'just want the music'. But LP buyers are may seen as a
small niche market who can be pursuaded to pay a premium for their belief
that that this choice shows they are 'discerning'. That does seem to be a
common approach when manufacturers wish to sell 'rare' items at fancy
prices. Make it a matter of 'fashion' and allowing those buying to use it
to feel they are superior to the 'crowd'.

One interesting point here is that in general classical or jazz CDs tend
*not* to be level compressed or clipped to the same extent as 'popular'
(i.e. sells in larger numbers) genres. Yet even when at a low price and be
very well produced. So this isn't a matter of format, but a matter of how
the relevant portions of the industry look at their audience and the views
they have about them. In these types of music there is more chance, I
suspect, that the listeners will have a clearer idea of what the results
sound like in a (often entirely acoustic) concert, and expect the recording
to be comparable. So exposing some behaviours that may pass unnoticed with
'pop' music constructed in a studio.


In effect, pop CD buyers are treated as liking clipping and distortion, pop
LP buyers as wanting the boost of having what they regard as 'desirable'
items that show they are 'discerning'. For that a higher price and
'exclusivity' of things like 'limited editions' are useful as promotional
tools. They may also be regarded a preferring the types of distortion, etc,
which arise with LP.

Classical/Jazz or other minority special tastes are presumably regarded
differently for reasons like the ones I mention.

Of course, if the industry has any evidence which could be examined and
tested, we might discover if there is more to it. As it is, we can only
judge on the products and details like the price structures, marketing,
etc.


Actually it is generally the uncompressed ones that are louder. You
naturally turn the volume control to your preferred volume. Once you
have done that, the uncompressed one will have bigger peaks like cymbal
hits that will be noticeably louder. My judgment of overcompressed music
is not that it is loud, but that it is lifeless.

The confounding factor is that clipping or peak distortion on LP can tend
to make peaks sound louder.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 14:55:09 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:

LPs can't be cut loud. There are all sorts of mechanical and thermal
limitations to vinyl that prevent it.

It didn't stop them trying. Certain published albums were used as test
tracks in cartridge/stylus reviews. The point being, most systems
COULDN'T track them.

Generally it was due to trying to reproduce an impossibly low bass
drum, not a quest for compressed loudness. Other parts of the
analogue recording chain could do that.

In article ,
Rob wrote:
There's got to be some reason why such a complete and
utter hash has been made of some CDs.

Fashion. One 'mastering house' produces a big hit, so everyone uses them
or copies them. But of course, that hit might have been a bigger one
without the processing.
It's a bit the same as 'filmic effect' applied to video. I don't know
anyone who likes it - but that doesn't stop it being used.

--
*If horrific means to make horrible, does terrific mean to make terrible?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Rob" wrote in message
m...
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
m...
David Looser wrote:
"Rob" wrote
Told you so!

(Vinyl Nut)
Who told what to whom?

David.

You told me/others that we are told that CDs must be mastered at such a
high level at to actually clip "because that is what the market
demands". But that LPs can be cut at a much more reasonable level. Why,
if the market demands "loud" do the LPs not need to be "load". loud'?


So when you said "told you so" you meant *I* was the one doing the
telling? So you meant to say "told me so!" You do seem remarkably
confused :-)

Anyway I never said that "CDs must be mastered at such a high level at to
actually clip "because that is what the market demands". That's what Iain
keeps saying. But neither he, nor the industry, has ever offered an ounce
of proof.

All *I* actually said was that this lame excuse for loudness long
pre-dates the CD.

Do you understand now?


Yep :-)

Go back a few steps, look at what you wrote, read Dave P's reply, read my
reply to your reply, then work it out.

So if your post was a response to Dave's post, not mine, why did you send it
in response to mine?. To the best of my knowledge you have never previously
told me anything, so saying "I told you so" to me was meaningless. You said
"You told me/others that we are told that CDs must be mastered at such a
high level at to actually clip "because that is what the market demands". So
when I report what others say you think that means I believe it myself? I
assure you I do not! You were trying to make a point, and failing - badly.

Less prosaically, and in search for a verifiable truth,

A what? a verifiable truth in an area where there is no data? What an absurd
notion!

Ian's notion (if indeed it's what he says) looks worth thinking about as a
hypothesis I'd have thought. There's got to be some reason why such a
complete and utter hash has been made of some CDs.


There is no reason why "such a complete and utter hash has been made of some
CDs" - beyond sheer incompetence. I have to say that this doesn't affect me
anyway, the CDs I buy don't have LP equivalents, so there is nothing to
compare the CD with.
A few from the 'pop' end show signs of excessive compression, but then this
has been the case with pop recordings from long before CDs became available.
Iain's hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis. No evidence has been produced
to support it so it remains simply his uninformed guess. I have to say that
from where I sit it makes no sense; people don't buy records because they
are loud, they buy them because they like the artist, or the music.

David.

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Looser" wrote:

The only reason I can think of why a record company might choose to treat
the two formats this way is they are trying to maintain a market for LPs
as
a premium-price product. And deliberately damaging the sound quality of
the
CD is thus an attempt to drive the quality-concious public into buying
the
premium price LP. Nothing else makes any sense.

No, in pop music the over-compression gives a distinct sound quality
presumed to be part of the music product's appeal.

If that were the case the compression would be added during mix-down, not in
the mastering stage.

Even given the recent relative strength of the lp market, I'd guess most
titles get a limited pressing, so producers are given free(er) rein.


And a free(er) reign means less compression? But you just said it was "part
of the music product's appeal" Why does the producer want the LP to have
less appeal?

David.

In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:
There's got to be some reason why such a complete and utter hash has
been made of some CDs.

Fashion. One 'mastering house' produces a big hit, so everyone uses them
or copies them. But of course, that hit might have been a bigger one
without the processing. It's a bit the same as 'filmic effect' applied
to video. I don't know anyone who likes it - but that doesn't stop it
being used.

That seems a good point to me. In effect, the pop music biz is a 'fashion'
industry, so the above seems plausible as they way some of those involved
may think.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article ,
"David Looser" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Looser" wrote:

The only reason I can think of why a record company might choose to treat
the two formats this way is they are trying to maintain a market for LPs
as
a premium-price product. And deliberately damaging the sound quality of
the
CD is thus an attempt to drive the quality-concious public into buying
the
premium price LP. Nothing else makes any sense.

No, in pop music the over-compression gives a distinct sound quality
presumed to be part of the music product's appeal.

If that were the case the compression would be added during mix-down, not in
the mastering stage.

Here's one case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_Trails

Criticism

The production of Vapor Trails has been criticized due to the album's
"loud" sound quality. Albums such as this have been mastered so loud
that additional digital distortion is generated during the production of
the CD. The trend, known as the Loudness war, has become very common on
modern rock CDs.

As explained by Rip Rowan on the ProRec website, the damaged production
is the result of overly-compressed (clipped) audio levels during
mastering, though Rush has admitted that there was digital distortion
during recording, which also contributed to the damage. Remastering the
album would not correct the damage from digital distortion that was
introduced during recording, but it could correct the other, more
destructive damage that is the result of overly-compressing the audio
during mastering.

On Retrospective 3, Richard Chycki, who recently worked with the band on
the R30 and both the Snakes & Arrows album and live sets, remixed "One
Little Victory", and "Earthshine". In an interview with Modern Guitars,
Lifeson remarked that since the remixes were so good, there has been
talk of doing an entire remix of the album.[4] He also stated:

It was a contest, and it was mastered too high, and it crackles, and
it spits, and it just crushes everything. All the dynamics get lost,
especially anything that had an acoustic guitar in it.

--

I don't see the difference what stage the compression is added makes.

Even given the recent relative strength of the lp market, I'd guess most
titles get a limited pressing, so producers are given free(er) rein.


And a free(er) reign means less compression? But you just said it was "part
of the music product's appeal" Why does the producer want the LP to have
less appeal?

Because the producer may be under corporate pressure to deliver a
commercial sound for the mass market product. The limited run lp is all
but ignored so the producer can choose a less commercial sound. We
recently discussed an example by Tom Petty of this case, the "free"
relatively uncompressed cd with the lp package.

Stephen

"MiNe 109" wrote

I don't see the difference what stage the compression is added makes.

It makes no difference to the final result, of course. What I meant was that
if the compression is part of "the sound" (as you said it was) then it would
be part of the recording process prior to the point that the recording is
approved by producer and artist, not added in later.


Because the producer may be under corporate pressure to deliver a
commercial sound for the mass market product.

But everything I hear says it's the producers who decides. The "suits" are
in no position to listen to every track or to decide what degree of
compression does, or does not, make for a "commercial sound". What the suits
want is sales, it is up to the producer to decide how to deliver that.

The limited run lp is all
but ignored so the producer can choose a less commercial sound. We
recently discussed an example by Tom Petty of this case, the "free"
relatively uncompressed cd with the lp package.


Yet another bit of nonesense from the record companies. Why demand that the
purchaser buys a redundant LP before they are allowed to purchase a
well-mastered CD?

Are you *really* trying to suggest that there is any kind of sense behind
record industry behaviour?

David.

In article ,
"David Looser" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote

I don't see the difference what stage the compression is added makes.

It makes no difference to the final result, of course. What I meant was that
if the compression is part of "the sound" (as you said it was) then it would
be part of the recording process prior to the point that the recording is
approved by producer and artist, not added in later.

Yes, artists and producers approve the compromised product. They have to
or it won't be released in any form.

Because the producer may be under corporate pressure to deliver a
commercial sound for the mass market product.

But everything I hear says it's the producers who decides. The "suits" are
in no position to listen to every track or to decide what degree of
compression does, or does not, make for a "commercial sound". What the suits
want is sales, it is up to the producer to decide how to deliver that.

The "suits" can and will reject the final product if it does not conform
to their wishes.

The limited run lp is all
but ignored so the producer can choose a less commercial sound. We
recently discussed an example by Tom Petty of this case, the "free"
relatively uncompressed cd with the lp package.


Yet another bit of nonesense from the record companies. Why demand that the
purchaser buys a redundant LP before they are allowed to purchase a
well-mastered CD?

No, it's huge favor to the public who would never have the opportunity
to buy the well-mastered cd otherwise. Think of it as a $30 cd like
Mobile Fidelity, etc, with a free lp. This particular package was the
producer's idea, IIRC. Here's more on that:

http://www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo....ber=WEALP45586

Mudcrutch engineer Ryan Ulyate says he and the musicians felt they had
to compromise on the mass-market CD (released on April 29, 2008). That's
because, in general, most popular music CDs are mixed to sound louder
for use in cars and for conversion into MP3s. "That makes it really
unsatisfying to listen to," Ulyate says. "We have this loudness war that
has destroyed the way CDs sound, and we're trying to find a way to get
off this spiral."

--

If Tom Petty and company "felt they had to compromise" there's no way
lesser-selling groups are in a stronger position.

Are you *really* trying to suggest that there is any kind of sense behind
record industry behaviour?

There are recognizable patterns, yes.

Stephen

"MiNe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"David Looser" wrote:

"MiNe 109" wrote

I don't see the difference what stage the compression is added makes.

It makes no difference to the final result, of course. What I meant was
that
if the compression is part of "the sound" (as you said it was) then it
would
be part of the recording process prior to the point that the recording is
approved by producer and artist, not added in later.

Yes, artists and producers approve the compromised product. They have to
or it won't be released in any form.

Exactly, and they approve it *before* mastering, so before the comprssion is
applied. If it was part of the "sound" it would be applied before, not
after.

Because the producer may be under corporate pressure to deliver a
commercial sound for the mass market product.

But everything I hear says it's the producers who decides. The "suits"
are
in no position to listen to every track or to decide what degree of
compression does, or does not, make for a "commercial sound". What the
suits
want is sales, it is up to the producer to decide how to deliver that.

The "suits" can and will reject the final product if it does not conform
to their wishes.

The suits do not have the time to listen to everything, nor the skills to
decide what is, or is not, "commercial"

The limited run lp is all
but ignored so the producer can choose a less commercial sound. We
recently discussed an example by Tom Petty of this case, the "free"
relatively uncompressed cd with the lp package.


Yet another bit of nonesense from the record companies. Why demand that
the
purchaser buys a redundant LP before they are allowed to purchase a
well-mastered CD?

No, it's huge favor to the public who would never have the opportunity
to buy the well-mastered cd otherwise. Think of it as a $30 cd like
Mobile Fidelity, etc, with a free lp. This particular package was the
producer's idea, IIRC. Here's more on that:

Sorry Stephen, that really is the silliest thing you've said yet. To suggest
that forcing people who want a CD to buy a redundant LP as well is doing
them a "favour" is just plain nuts.

http://www.elusivedisc.com/prodinfo....ber=WEALP45586

Mudcrutch engineer Ryan Ulyate says he and the musicians felt they had
to compromise on the mass-market CD (released on April 29, 2008). That's
because, in general, most popular music CDs are mixed to sound louder
for use in cars and for conversion into MP3s. "That makes it really
unsatisfying to listen to," Ulyate says. "We have this loudness war that
has destroyed the way CDs sound, and we're trying to find a way to get
off this spiral."


They could quite simply have offered the less compressed CD as an option,
without tying it into the LP purchase (and thus making it a lot more
expensive). I guess the industry nutcases were scared that if they offered a
highly compressed and a less compressed CD on equal terms so many people
would buy the uncompressed version as to undermine their quasi-religious
belief in "loudness". There is, in fact, absolutely no reason why CDs cannot
be offered in two versions. If they can offer an LP as an option they can
sell a less compressed CD as an option. Why are they scared to try it?
--

If Tom Petty and company "felt they had to compromise" there's no way
lesser-selling groups are in a stronger position.

Are you *really* trying to suggest that there is any kind of sense behind
record industry behaviour?

There are recognizable patterns, yes.

Recognisable patterns of insanity you mean?

David.