20+ years of digital audio: Progress, or regression?

[WBRW]

20 years ago, the Compact Disc was introduced, launching the digital
audio revolution. And while we use the same basic format today, the
technology that goes behind it -- on both the production and playback
ends -- has improved considerably.

But has the manner in which this technology is used actually caused a
significant regression in the sound quality available to the consumer?

Listen to a CD whose mastering dates from the early 1980s, and then
listen to any of today's CDs, and judge for yourself.

That's exactly what I did, and I made a waveform graph of both CDs to
help visualize the comparison.

The first CD I chose was the original, non-"remastered" version of
ABBA's album "The Visitors". Digitally recorded in 1981, and released
on CD in 1983, it was one of the pioneering pop music CDs to make full
use of digital technology. Here is its waveform graph:

http://www.geocities.com/kevtronics/abba.gif

As you can see, it makes excellent use of the dynamic range that the
CD format delivers. Only *one* digital sample during the entire disc
reaches full scale (0 dB, or 100%) -- so there's no clipping, no
constant peak limiting, and no added distortion. "The Visitors" was
ABBA's final and most mature album, and this exceptional use of wide
dynamic range and high peak-to-average ratio makes it an even more
impressive listening experience today... despite the fact that it is
more than two decades old!

Meanwhile, in today's pop music world, production of an album has
changed considerably. Use of digital audio is no longer a speciality;
it is the standard. Pretty much the only analog devices left are the
microphones and speakers. And at the start of this millennium, one of
the landmark albums in pop music was 'N SYNC's "No Strings Attached".
Love 'em or hate 'em, they made their mark in CD sales and radio
airplay. So what does the waveform graph of this album look like?

http://www.geocities.com/kevtronics/nsync.gif

I'll let that graph speak for itself as to just how much compression,
peak limiting, and peak clipping was applied in order to achieve such
consistently massive audio. And the lower peak levels of the first
and last few tracks hints at the "pre-mastering" that is being done
right in the recording and mixing process, effectively killing off any
and all dynamic range long before the mastering engineer ever gets his
hands on the tracks. All he can do is drop down the gain of the few
tracks that come out too jarringly loud as compared to the rest. And
all the *listener* can do is drop down the gain of the *entire* CD
because of how jarringly loud and distorted it comes out of their
speakers!

So, is this progress, or regression? Today, even few supposedly
advanced "audiophile" formats like SACD or DVD Audio offer as much
dynamic range as ABBA's album offered two decades ago. 20 years ago,
purists complained about the "cold", "harsh" sound of digital audio.
Today, they may have finally proven themselves right!

[Mike]

Yawn

[Garthrr]

In article >,
(WBRW) writes:

>So, is this progress, or regression? Today, even few supposedly
>advanced "audiophile" formats like SACD or DVD Audio offer as much
>dynamic range as ABBA's album offered two decades ago. 20 years ago,
>purists complained about the "cold", "harsh" sound of digital audio.
>Today, they may have finally proven themselves right!
>
>

The dynamic range is there in modern formats. Whether or not it is taken
advantage seems to be the subject you are addressing. Thats a matter of
cultural norms, not of the inherent potential of the medium.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

[Laurence Payne]

>So, is this progress, or regression? Today, even few supposedly
>advanced "audiophile" formats like SACD or DVD Audio offer as much
>dynamic range as ABBA's album offered two decades ago. 20 years ago,
>purists complained about the "cold", "harsh" sound of digital audio.
>Today, they may have finally proven themselves right!

So producers today go for over-compression.
What's that got to do with the digital medium they deliver on?

[WBRW]

> http://www.geocities.com/kevtronics/abba.gif

FYI, GeoCities doesn't seem to like directly-linked images. But if
you copy and paste the URL into your browser's address bar and then
hit Enter, it'll work fine.

[Jan B]

On 04 Sep 2003 10:04:39 GMT, (Garthrr) wrote:

>In article >,
(WBRW) writes:
>
>>So, is this progress, or regression? Today, even few supposedly
>>advanced "audiophile" formats like SACD or DVD Audio offer as much
>>dynamic range as ABBA's album offered two decades ago. 20 years ago,
>>purists complained about the "cold", "harsh" sound of digital audio.
>>Today, they may have finally proven themselves right!

>The dynamic range is there in modern formats. Whether or not it is taken
>advantage seems to be the subject you are addressing. Thats a matter of
>cultural norms, not of the inherent potential of the medium.
>
>Garth~

Choice of dynamic range could be one thing described as personal
liking (disliking).
My complaint regarding over compression is the resulting distortion
that makes the sound unclean. I can't believe that anyone likes the
sound and prefers that to a more clean sound.

I haven't listened to the N'sync album in question.
However, the worst I have and had to do something about is the Celine
Dion "One Hart" album.
A heavy noise limiter and some filtering made it less annoying. At
least so I can listen to (most of the tracks) in the car.
I played a comparison to some friends. They all agreed that it
shouldn't sound the way the original does.

So start educating your friends about this madness.
"Stop hypercompression!"
/Jan

[EganMedia]

>However, the worst I have and had to do something about is the Celine
>Dion "One Hart" album.
>A heavy noise limiter and some filtering made it less annoying. At
>least so I can listen to (most of the tracks) in the car.

A hammer is the only tool I can think of that would make a Celine Dion CD
enjoyable.


Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[WBRW]

> So producers today go for over-compression.
> What's that got to do with the digital medium they deliver on?

Digital makes it possible to achieve such drastic levels of
compression/limiting/clipping, without the results sounding totally
like crap. In fact, most people think it sounds fine, because it
plays upon the natural "Louder Is Better" mentality, and when
hyper-compressed music (on CDs, on the radio, on TV, etc...) becomes
commonplace, people no longer recognize what dynamic range is and how
it benefits the music listening experience.

45 RPM singles had their own analog loudness wars in the early 1960s
-- try listening to the original mono 45s of "Summer In The City" or
"Stop! In The Name of Love". You don't even need speakers -- just the
stylus in the groove provides room-filling sound. But... people got
tired of distorted, low-fidelity mono sound. As music production and
recording equipment improved, so did the level of quality available to
the consumer. Even well-mastered *8-track tapes* from the 1970s have
better dynamic range and less distortion than today's CDs!

But, digital audio allowed loudness to become addictive, because it
provides "perfect" limiting/clipping -- you can hack off every single
peak during an entire album, and the more you hack off, the louder it
gets, until you're left with audio that's literally "flat as a
pancake". So what if there's no dynamic range whatsoever, the
clipping distortion is horrendous, and every single bass drum kick
comes out as a square wave? It's LOUD! And LOUDER is BETTER...
right??

[Ricky W. Hunt]

"Garthrr" > wrote in message
...
> In article <3f57892d.58551554@wingate>,
(Jan
> B) writes:
>
> >Choice of dynamic range could be one thing described as personal
> >liking (disliking).
> >My complaint regarding over compression is the resulting distortion
> >that makes the sound unclean. I can't believe that anyone likes the
> >sound and prefers that to a more clean sound.
>
> I cant believe there are people who want to deliberately put vinyl record
> surface noise on their songs.

People always want what they don't have and will throw away everything they
have to get it. Been then same since the garden of Eden.

[John Washburn]

"EganMedia" wrote:

> A hammer is the only tool I can think of that would make a Celine Dion CD
> enjoyable.


You must not have thought this all the way through:

All manner of power and non-power tools will improve nearly *any* Celine
Dion CD: acetylene torch, Saws-all, pliers (needle-nose through vise grips),
hack saw, Dremel tool, liquid nitrogen (especially in conjunction with the
hammer), various acid baths, Jaws-o'-Life, a little C-4, a few years in the
ocean, rotary saw, table saw, lathe, various types and size of drills and
drill bits, sandpaper, etc.

Speaking of, does anyone know the melting temp of a CD?

-jw

[no spam]

On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 15:31:06 GMT, "John Washburn"
> wrote:

> a little C-4, a few years in the
>ocean, rotary saw, table saw, lathe, various types and size of drills and
>drill bits, sandpaper, etc.
>
>Speaking of, does anyone know the melting temp of a CD?

C4 a great plugin as well.
Paul Gitlitz
Glitchless Productions
www.glitchless.net

[James Copland]

Just a quick question.

The examples mentioned are all from pop. Does all this compression get
applied to classical recordings as well? Or do producers still respect
the composer's fortes and pianissimi?

Jim

[John L Rice]

"WBRW" > wrote in message
om...
> > So producers today go for over-compression.
> > What's that got to do with the digital medium they deliver on?
>
> Digital makes it possible to achieve such drastic levels of
> compression/limiting/clipping, without the results sounding totally
> like crap. In fact, most people think it sounds fine, because it
> plays upon the natural "Louder Is Better" mentality, and when
> hyper-compressed music (on CDs, on the radio, on TV, etc...) becomes
> commonplace, people no longer recognize what dynamic range is and how
> it benefits the music listening experience.
>
> 45 RPM singles had their own analog loudness wars in the early 1960s
> -- try listening to the original mono 45s of "Summer In The City" or
> "Stop! In The Name of Love". You don't even need speakers -- just the
> stylus in the groove provides room-filling sound. But... people got
> tired of distorted, low-fidelity mono sound. As music production and
> recording equipment improved, so did the level of quality available to
> the consumer. Even well-mastered *8-track tapes* from the 1970s have
> better dynamic range and less distortion than today's CDs!
>
> But, digital audio allowed loudness to become addictive, because it
> provides "perfect" limiting/clipping -- you can hack off every single
> peak during an entire album, and the more you hack off, the louder it
> gets, until you're left with audio that's literally "flat as a
> pancake". So what if there's no dynamic range whatsoever, the
> clipping distortion is horrendous, and every single bass drum kick
> comes out as a square wave? It's LOUD! And LOUDER is BETTER...
> right??

Because kids these days like to hear music as much as I did when I was young
but since they are cruising around in used Japanese cars that have
'mufflers' big enough for wiener dogs to crawl into they need to have all
music LOUD!

John L Rice

[Doc]

(WBRW) wrote in message >...
> > So producers today go for over-compression.
> > What's that got to do with the digital medium they deliver on?
>
> Digital makes it possible to achieve such drastic levels of
> compression/limiting/clipping, without the results sounding totally
> like crap. In fact, most people think it sounds fine, because it
> plays upon the natural "Louder Is Better" mentality, and when
> hyper-compressed music (on CDs, on the radio, on TV, etc...) becomes
> commonplace, people no longer recognize what dynamic range is and how
> it benefits the music listening experience.

Someone correct me if they know for a fact this is crap, but I was
listening to a CD of Eva Cassidy, (a singer featured on "Nightline" a
while back who gained fame posthumously), and it struck me that
whoever produced her recordings made a point of using minimal
compression. Her tracks have what sound to me like extreme dynamic
range, my guess is that they wanted her incredible and unique sound as
unencumbered by studio tricks as possible.

[Rob Adelman]

Jim Kollens wrote:

> I don't hear that on disc but I never heard it on
> vinyl either.

Jim, have you hear SACD? That tape sound comes through.

[Doc]

James Copland > wrote in message >...
> Just a quick question.
>
> The examples mentioned are all from pop. Does all this compression get
> applied to classical recordings as well? Or do producers still respect
> the composer's fortes and pianissimi?

The first CD I bought, even before I actually had a CD player was Doc
Severinsen "Trumpet Spectacular", where he plays "legit" literature
(Trumpet Voluntary, Carnival Of Venice, Flight of Bumblebee, etc.)
accompanied by The Cincinnati Pops. The liner notes make a point of
advising that no processing of any kind - eq, compression, etc. were
used. What you hear is straight from the mics, through the board to
the digital master. I.e. the sound is totally dependent on the
mics/placement, the room, and the musicians. I don't claim to be the
foremost expert but it sounds incredible to me. I assume there are
many classical recordings made this way, or at least they should be!

[Scott Dorsey]

James Copland > wrote:
>
>The examples mentioned are all from pop. Does all this compression get
>applied to classical recordings as well? Or do producers still respect
>the composer's fortes and pianissimi?

Depends on the label. A lot of the classical labels are using some mild
compression. Some of the crossover albums are squashed WAY beyond what
I'd consider acceptable for classical broadcast, let alone released albums,
though.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."