Dave Platt wrote:
In article , thanks wrote:


The Pretenders Best barely audible
The Eurythmics Hits a bit louder
Sugar Ray 14:59 very loud
Pink Misunderstood louder
Eminem The Eminem Show a bit more loud


I suspect that if you look at the Eminem CD's data using Audacity or
some other visualizer, you'll find that the producer compressed the
(expletive deleted) out of it - its peaks are probably at very
nearly full-scale, and the "quieter" bits are only a few dB down.
Very little dynamic range left.

The Pretenders and Eurithmics CDs are probably clean transcriptions of
the original analog master tapes, which date back to an era when such
excessive compression was unusual. They've probably got a
significantly greater crest-to-average ratio, and thus the average
level must be kept lower (in absolute terms) to avoid clipping.

Yes, yes yes, HMM...and to my ears I have to tell you once you up the
volume a bit The Pretenders and Eurythmics CD's sound like music. The
dynamic range is there, I was only looking at peak info but looking at
peak vs. average it's very obvious now. Just shows how myopic I can
become, right there to plainly see.

Ben Bradley wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:16:18 +0200, Per Stromgren
wrote:


On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:42:35 -0400, thanks wrote:


Pretty much it seems
that the ones recorded more recently in DDD are just tremendously loud
whereas the older ones I have AAD are barely audible on the same volume
settings on my preamplifier.


The correlation between increasing loudness and AAD/ADD/DDD may be
more coincidental than anything. The material on older CD's was
usually recorded analog. Most modern recording is now done
all-digital. There is a separate 'Loudness Wars' phenomenon (the
commonly used word for it is hypercompression), though it's possible
that advances in technology have contributed to it.
If anything, modern digital recording makes available a much lower
noise floor and a greater available dynamic range, so one might think
the average volume (compared to the maximum available) would be LOWER
(by having quieter parts, taking advantage of the dynamic range
available) than with the technology several decades ago. Quoting the
late John Belushi, "But Nooooooooooo...."
As the link below explains, 'louder' is 'better' for sales, and you
make it louder by compression and limiting, amplifying every part of
the recording to make it at or near the maximum allowable volume
level. So, yes, ironically there is far less dynamics now than ever
before (even Edison cylinders didn't use compression), in a consumer
medium (the CD) capable of more dynamics than ever before.


Really? Do you have some examples for us? It is hard to beleive that
the difference could be that big, but I'm all ears.


This should be example enough - if you're a Rush fan, you might
have noticed by now:

http://www.prorec.com/prorec/article...256C2E005DAF1C

Scroll down past the 'SHOUTING' and look at the table. It shows a 9
dB increase in volume over the last five albums.


Per


-----
http://www.mindspring.com/~benbradley
I like rush and have four of their cd's but it's the favorite group of a
friend of mine. He's a drummer and has met them several times and has
been to dozens of concerts. I'm going to borrow the cd's and check it
out, I'm sure it's true but I want to be amazed in person......Just read
the article link you posted / That says it all doesn't it. BEAUTIFUL.
Well written article I especially like the wave samples makes it
painfully clear. Can't wait to see if remasters come out and how soon.

"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:42:35 -0400, thanks wrote:

Pretty much it seems
that the ones recorded more recently in DDD are just tremendously loud
whereas the older ones I have AAD are barely audible on the same volume
settings on my preamplifier.

Really? Do you have some examples for us? It is hard to beleive that
the difference could be that big, but I'm all ears.


Given that the middle letter is for the Mastering, a D there makes for
easier hyper-compression (using software), but the same *could* be acheived
with an "A" there.

geoff

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 16:41:04 +1200, "Geoff Wood"
wrote:


"Per Stromgren" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 08:42:35 -0400, thanks wrote:

Pretty much it seems
that the ones recorded more recently in DDD are just tremendously loud
whereas the older ones I have AAD are barely audible on the same volume
settings on my preamplifier.

Really? Do you have some examples for us? It is hard to beleive that
the difference could be that big, but I'm all ears.


Given that the middle letter is for the Mastering, a D there makes for
easier hyper-compression (using software), but the same *could* be acheived
with an "A" there.

Indeed, but as I told mr Thanks in another post, I was reacting to his
use of words he "tremendously loud" vs "barely audible". This kind
of difference would not come from use of compression, even in this
industry.

geoff


Per.

"Per Stromgren" wrote in message

Indeed, but as I told mr Thanks in another post, I was reacting to his
use of words he "tremendously loud" vs "barely audible". This kind
of difference would not come from use of compression, even in this
industry.


But he was referring to different items and styles music from different eras
(?)

geoff

Steven Sullivan wrote:
Richard Crowley wrote:

"thanks" wrote ...

i.e. different CD's seem to be recorded at different levels. One CD will
produce peaks at 5 watts on my power output meter and then the next CD
with the volume in the same position will put out only 1 watt. The list
goes on and on and it's not dependent on the type of music as some
classical is louder than some jazz etc.


The topic of mastering CDs and apparent loudness levels is a source
of endless discussion and debate. It is very much a technical, esthetics,
and marketing issue. Perhaps you are too new here to realize what a
huge can or worms this is. It is even more remarkable that CDs are so
similar in level.


Other than adjusting the volume level is there someway that audiophiles
compensate for this with some high end 'black box'? I was thinking of
hooking up a studio compressor/limiter but though it might work I don't
think it would give the best fidelity on full program as it cost only
$100.


No way. There is no equipment at any price that can do what your
ear and a quick adjustment of the volume control can do.


Burn all your CDs to hard drive in lossless format, then use
foobar2k with 'replaygain' activated for playback.
That will bring disparate average levels more into line,
without actually changing the files.

More about replaygain:

http://www.replaygain.org/


You can do that with iTunes as well.

CD

thanks wrote:
i.e. different CD's seem to be recorded at different levels. One CD
will produce peaks at 5 watts on my power output meter and then the next
CD with the volume in the same position will put out only 1 watt. The
list goes on and on and it's not dependent on the type of music as some
classical is louder than some jazz etc.

Other than adjusting the volume level is there someway that audiophiles
compensate for this with some high end 'black box'? I was thinking of
hooking up a studio compressor/limiter but though it might work I don't
think it would give the best fidelity on full program as it cost only $100.
I just finished listening to Yes (fragile - atlantic gold) King Crimson
(wake of poseidon - pony gold) (court of the crimson king - pony gold)
Pink Floyd (dark side of the moon - mfsl gold) Albert King (cold snap -
mfsl gold)

I get a headache just thinking how awful these would sound compressed
and how much of the experience is based on the dynamic range...

....and I think I'm comfortable now with adjusting the volume and will
forgo the processing.

You guys are the best amazing what you guys know.

On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 14:43:54 -0400, thanks wrote:

I just finished listening to Yes (fragile - atlantic gold) King Crimson
(wake of poseidon - pony gold) (court of the crimson king - pony gold)
Pink Floyd (dark side of the moon - mfsl gold) Albert King (cold snap -
mfsl gold)

I get a headache just thinking how awful these would sound compressed
and how much of the experience is based on the dynamic range...

...and I think I'm comfortable now with adjusting the volume and will
forgo the processing.

You guys are the best amazing what you guys know.

Good choice!

d

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

thanks wrote:
thanks wrote:

i.e. different CD's seem to be recorded at different levels. One CD
will produce peaks at 5 watts on my power output meter and then the
next CD with the volume in the same position will put out only 1
watt. The list goes on and on and it's not dependent on the type of
music as some classical is louder than some jazz etc.

Other than adjusting the volume level is there someway that
audiophiles compensate for this with some high end 'black box'? I was
thinking of hooking up a studio compressor/limiter but though it might
work I don't think it would give the best fidelity on full program as
it cost only $100.

I just finished listening to Yes (fragile - atlantic gold) King Crimson
(wake of poseidon - pony gold) (court of the crimson king - pony gold)
Pink Floyd (dark side of the moon - mfsl gold) Albert King (cold snap -
mfsl gold)

I get a headache just thinking how awful these would sound compressed
and how much of the experience is based on the dynamic range...

...and I think I'm comfortable now with adjusting the volume and will
forgo the processing.

You guys are the best amazing what you guys know.
Those old CDs have other problems too. I have Pink FLoyd's Dark side of
the Moon as well. Don't you find the treble way too hot? I've developed
a practice whenever I get one of those early gen CDs to rip the files to
the computer, EQ them just a wee bit to make the treble more livable and
natural, then make my own CDRs.

CD

Codifus wrote:
thanks wrote:

thanks wrote:

i.e. different CD's seem to be recorded at different levels. One CD
will produce peaks at 5 watts on my power output meter and then the
next CD with the volume in the same position will put out only 1
watt. The list goes on and on and it's not dependent on the type of
music as some classical is louder than some jazz etc.

Other than adjusting the volume level is there someway that
audiophiles compensate for this with some high end 'black box'? I
was thinking of hooking up a studio compressor/limiter but though it
might work I don't think it would give the best fidelity on full
program as it cost only $100.


I just finished listening to Yes (fragile - atlantic gold) King
Crimson (wake of poseidon - pony gold) (court of the crimson king -
pony gold) Pink Floyd (dark side of the moon - mfsl gold) Albert King
(cold snap - mfsl gold)

I get a headache just thinking how awful these would sound compressed
and how much of the experience is based on the dynamic range...

...and I think I'm comfortable now with adjusting the volume and will
forgo the processing.

You guys are the best amazing what you guys know.

Those old CDs have other problems too. I have Pink FLoyd's Dark side of
the Moon as well. Don't you find the treble way too hot? I've developed
a practice whenever I get one of those early gen CDs to rip the files to
the computer, EQ them just a wee bit to make the treble more livable and
natural, then make my own CDRs.

CD
The MFSL copy of it? If you're talking any of the early CD's released
that were of vinyl originally absolutely yes. I had all five of the
police albums and then I got the CD's. I couldn't listen to them. Then
later I bought the remasters and they sound fine, I like listening to
them. I remember one of the first CD's I ever bought in the mid
eighties when they were just starting to sell them, was Pink Floyd Wish
You Were Here. It was horrible. Very thin and 'trebbly' now I have the
DCC Gold version and it's awesome.

In general I never liked a lot of treble anyway, even before CD's.
Currently I keep my speakers on the floor and I prefer that as opposed
to on stands. I kind of like the diffused sense of high better than
that in your face clinical kind of studio monitor treble.

One of the best purchases I have made recently has been a Carver True
subwoofer. I've tried all kinds of bass solutions, except for traps.
Once I had dual twelve subs on each side but I could never get the deep
bass and seamless crossover of the midbass that I was after. I was
using them with a SUMO electronic crossover and no matter how I set it
up, just no good. I switched to tens and even eights, no good. Now
with the Carver it's so small you don't even know there is a sub in the
room and I can dial it in pretty good. Now I have that solid foundation
but no boom and the midbass is still crisp.

But to get back to your OP I like the MFSL copy of DSOM fine and it
sounds great BUT let me say this. I no longer have any vinyl or a
record player and my equipment today is much better than when I did BUT
BUT BUT BUT BUT is it my distorted memory, is it age, I DON'T KNOW but I
can still hear 'Time' on that early system with the shibata stylus
tracking at 1.2 grams I think it was. MAN THAT ROCKED. It was a
visceral experience that somehow I'm just not getting AS MUCH with the
CD player. DO I want to go back to cleaning vinyl and the pops and
clicks, NO. But somehow I feel consumerism didn't fully exploit the
medium to what it could have been . The treble on the vinyl was better
I think. But that could just be my memory and greener grass on the
other side. Still though you have no idea how close I've come to buying
a record player and some records just to find out.

"Codifus" wrote in message
...

But then, that's assuming that you burn the CDR and put it in storage.
In more real world terms where you use the CDR and it gets buffed and
scratched up, it's longevitiy will be considerably shorter. The "real"
CD is just built tough, expecting abuse, like a Hummer.

Sure; but what I was concerned about was inherent longevity - "shelf life"
as one poster put it. I hadn't expected it to be as long as 30 years. I'd
looked for the Kodak documentation, expecting to show that the proposal to
use CDRs was not feasible. I was surprised and educated to find out CDRs
were good for more than 30 years..

For archiving, there were two libraries in physical locations 100 miles
apart.
In each location, two copies (A and B) of each archived CD were kept in the
vital records stores. When someone wanted to retrieve an archived CD, the
librarian retrieved the "A" copy on their daily trip to the store, made two
copies, gave one to the requester, kept one, and put the original A copy
back in the store next day.

The idea was that if the requester reported a problem with their copy, the
librarian could immediately provide the system support staff with the second
copy for them to investigate. (It was a trek to the vital record store, and
only designated people had access. The librarian made a daily trip.)

Tim

thanks wrote:

i.e. different CD's seem to be recorded at different levels. One CD
will produce peaks at 5 watts on my power output meter and then the next
CD with the volume in the same position will put out only 1 watt. The
list goes on and on and it's not dependent on the type of music as some
classical is louder than some jazz etc.

Generally I would expect the less noisy CD's to sound better.

Other than adjusting the volume level is there someway that audiophiles
compensate for this with some high end 'black box'?

A remote control can come in handy. If you are really audiophilistic,
you will get some walks back and forth.

I was thinking of hooking up a studio compressor/limiter

The technical term is anathema.

but though it might work I don't
think it would give the best fidelity on full program
as it cost only $100.

A standard volume control is what does the task best.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

In article , thanks wrote:
i.e. different CD's seem to be recorded at different levels. One CD
will produce peaks at 5 watts on my power output meter and then the next
CD with the volume in the same position will put out only 1 watt. The
list goes on and on and it's not dependent on the type of music as some
classical is louder than some jazz etc.

Other than adjusting the volume level is there someway that audiophiles
compensate for this with some high end 'black box'? I was thinking of
hooking up a studio compressor/limiter but though it might work I don't
think it would give the best fidelity on full program as it cost only $100.

I don't know why

I have commented on this before. Some CD's have recorded peaks
about 6 dB different. Thats the way it is. I have used cheap automatic volume controls a few times,
which work very well. When playing them back from a multiple disc machine, it compensates for the
differences.It can't compensate perfecly due to the programs materials content,
and a single band device will respond mostly to bass. I also use these to play back MP3's
of recorded differences.

Its not a compressor, its
an automatic volume control.

greg

GregS wrote:
In article , thanks wrote:

i.e. different CD's seem to be recorded at different levels. One CD
will produce peaks at 5 watts on my power output meter and then the next
CD with the volume in the same position will put out only 1 watt. The
list goes on and on and it's not dependent on the type of music as some
classical is louder than some jazz etc.

Other than adjusting the volume level is there someway that audiophiles
compensate for this with some high end 'black box'? I was thinking of
hooking up a studio compressor/limiter but though it might work I don't
think it would give the best fidelity on full program as it cost only $100.


I don't know why

I have commented on this before. Some CD's have recorded peaks
about 6 dB different. Thats the way it is. I have used cheap automatic volume controls a few times,
which work very well. When playing them back from a multiple disc machine, it compensates for the
differences.It can't compensate perfecly due to the programs materials content,
and a single band device will respond mostly to bass. I also use these to play back MP3's
of recorded differences.

Its not a compressor, its
an automatic volume control.

greg

Brand Name / Model ?

In article , thanks wrote:
GregS wrote:
In article , thanks wrote:

i.e. different CD's seem to be recorded at different levels. One CD
will produce peaks at 5 watts on my power output meter and then the next
CD with the volume in the same position will put out only 1 watt. The
list goes on and on and it's not dependent on the type of music as some
classical is louder than some jazz etc.

Other than adjusting the volume level is there someway that audiophiles
compensate for this with some high end 'black box'? I was thinking of
hooking up a studio compressor/limiter but though it might work I don't
think it would give the best fidelity on full program as it cost only $100.


I don't know why

I have commented on this before. Some CD's have recorded peaks
about 6 dB different. Thats the way it is. I have used cheap automatic volume
controls a few times,
which work very well. When playing them back from a multiple disc machine, it
compensates for the
differences.It can't compensate perfecly due to the programs materials
content,
and a single band device will respond mostly to bass. I also use these to
play back MP3's
of recorded differences.

Its not a compressor, its
an automatic volume control.

greg

Brand Name / Model ?

So I searched and found one pricey one

http://www.smarthome.com/77964.html

Cheaper
Terk VR-1
http://google-cnet.com.com/4014-3505_9-30521144.
html?subj=volume_regulator&part=google-cnet&tag=341941

Perhaps cheaper, if you can look up a SIMA SVS-4d
I have one SIMA unit that only has the volume control feature, and it
works well.

MCM Electronics carries both of the latter entries.

greg

thanks wrote:
Codifus wrote:

thanks wrote:

thanks wrote:

i.e. different CD's seem to be recorded at different levels. One CD
will produce peaks at 5 watts on my power output meter and then the
next CD with the volume in the same position will put out only 1
watt. The list goes on and on and it's not dependent on the type of
music as some classical is louder than some jazz etc.

Other than adjusting the volume level is there someway that
audiophiles compensate for this with some high end 'black box'? I
was thinking of hooking up a studio compressor/limiter but though it
might work I don't think it would give the best fidelity on full
program as it cost only $100.



I just finished listening to Yes (fragile - atlantic gold) King
Crimson (wake of poseidon - pony gold) (court of the crimson king -
pony gold) Pink Floyd (dark side of the moon - mfsl gold) Albert King
(cold snap - mfsl gold)

I get a headache just thinking how awful these would sound compressed
and how much of the experience is based on the dynamic range...

...and I think I'm comfortable now with adjusting the volume and will
forgo the processing.

You guys are the best amazing what you guys know.


Those old CDs have other problems too. I have Pink FLoyd's Dark side
of the Moon as well. Don't you find the treble way too hot? I've
developed a practice whenever I get one of those early gen CDs to rip
the files to the computer, EQ them just a wee bit to make the treble
more livable and natural, then make my own CDRs.

CD

The MFSL copy of it? If you're talking any of the early CD's released
that were of vinyl originally absolutely yes. I had all five of the
police albums and then I got the CD's. I couldn't listen to them. Then
later I bought the remasters and they sound fine, I like listening to
them. I remember one of the first CD's I ever bought in the mid
eighties when they were just starting to sell them, was Pink Floyd Wish
You Were Here. It was horrible. Very thin and 'trebbly' now I have the
DCC Gold version and it's awesome.

In general I never liked a lot of treble anyway, even before CD's.
Currently I keep my speakers on the floor and I prefer that as opposed
to on stands. I kind of like the diffused sense of high better than
that in your face clinical kind of studio monitor treble.

One of the best purchases I have made recently has been a Carver True
subwoofer. I've tried all kinds of bass solutions, except for traps.
Once I had dual twelve subs on each side but I could never get the deep
bass and seamless crossover of the midbass that I was after. I was
using them with a SUMO electronic crossover and no matter how I set it
up, just no good. I switched to tens and even eights, no good. Now
with the Carver it's so small you don't even know there is a sub in the
room and I can dial it in pretty good. Now I have that solid foundation
but no boom and the midbass is still crisp.

But to get back to your OP I like the MFSL copy of DSOM fine and it
sounds great BUT let me say this. I no longer have any vinyl or a
record player and my equipment today is much better than when I did BUT
BUT BUT BUT BUT is it my distorted memory, is it age, I DON'T KNOW but I
can still hear 'Time' on that early system with the shibata stylus
tracking at 1.2 grams I think it was. MAN THAT ROCKED. It was a
visceral experience that somehow I'm just not getting AS MUCH with the
CD player. DO I want to go back to cleaning vinyl and the pops and
clicks, NO. But somehow I feel consumerism didn't fully exploit the
medium to what it could have been . The treble on the vinyl was better
I think. But that could just be my memory and greener grass on the
other side. Still though you have no idea how close I've come to buying
a record player and some records just to find out.
Oh, OK. I don't have any MFSL CDs.

CD

DO I want to go back to cleaning vinyl and the pops and
clicks, NO. But somehow I feel consumerism didn't fully exploit the
medium to what it could have been . The treble on the vinyl was better
I think. But that could just be my memory and greener grass on the
other side. Still though you have no idea how close I've come to buying
a record player and some records just to find out.

Well - don't dream it, be it :-)
It won't cost you much to kit up for vinyl. You'll either be a very
happy bunny, or another romantic delusion will hit the dirt.

Laurence Payne wrote:
DO I want to go back to cleaning vinyl and the pops and

clicks, NO. But somehow I feel consumerism didn't fully exploit the
medium to what it could have been . The treble on the vinyl was better
I think. But that could just be my memory and greener grass on the
other side. Still though you have no idea how close I've come to buying
a record player and some records just to find out.


Well - don't dream it, be it :-)
It won't cost you much to kit up for vinyl. You'll either be a very
happy bunny, or another romantic delusion will hit the dirt.


But what are we with out our romantic dreams? I hear you though.