skymusic20
Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Messages
- 47
- Likes
- 34
Hi all!
Im confused about the so called loudness war.
First, I wonder why DR compression became a thing with CDs. It seems to me nobody was discussing loudness war before CD. But I might be wrong. Yes, there was DR compression but I don't remember it was an issue.
I have read that making music sound louder makes people wrongly think it sounds better, like louder=better, hence people buy it. But by the time CDs arrived, people were already enthusiastically buying DR uncompressed vinyl. So from the pure marketing point of view, I see no reason to DR compress music. There was no need to convice people to buy CDs. CDs where the real deal back then and everybody loved them. Then, what was the need to DR compress music when CD arrived? The argument that this was done purely for marketing reasons does not convince me. But Im no marketing expert and I might well be completely wrong.
My second question is perhaps a heresy. Can a DR compressed album (remastered) sound better (be more faithful) than the previously DR uncompressed version of it?
Let me explain. Lets take any Led Zeppelin album. It seems to me that the newer the version, the less dynamic range it has. There have been countless of versions of Led Zeppelin IV, for instance. As you go from vinyl to CD and as years go by, every newer version seem to have less DR. As far as I know, band members have been involved in the remasters. They seem to endorse all remasters. The same happens with Iron Maiden remasters. As far as I know, band members seem to claim their newer versions (remasters) sound better. Yet these newer versions have less DR. But can you argue against the artist? Fidelity seems to be related to being faithful to what the artist intended. If artists tell you their remasters sound better, does it make sense to argue against the artist?
Now, Im probably gonna say something very, very foolish because I know my knowledge is very limited (Im basically ignorant and I admit it): Is it possible that one particular album shows a very wide DR but in truth some of that wide DR is due to some very, very soft noise introduced in the recording process? I mean, very soft sounds or noise that are very soft but that should not be there, not part of the song, but somehow got their way into the final recording.... Then if you release a new version and you cut out such unwanted soft noise, DR might seem to be reduced when in fact, it is not.
Now, Im also confused because some people in music forums strongly (almost religiously) recommend to buy japanese remasters of old CDs. For instance, I have read people who absolutely recommend buying the japanese remasters of Judas Priest. But when I look for them, these japanese remasters are also heavily compressed. The same people consider the UK/US 2001 Judas Priest remasters to be absolute crap, but the newer Japanese remasters to be absolute gold. Yet the japanese remasters are heavily comporessed. So, why one must be better than the other? Why one compressed version is garbage while the other is diamond if both are DR compressed?
Finally, when getting into softer more instrumental music, I notice a trend. For instance, Mike Oldfield and Alan Parsons remasters seem to preserve more or less their original DR found in the vinyl. Still, CD versions are more compressed than vinyl versions but not much. In general terms remastered CDs from these artists have a fairly wide DR but never as much as vinyl.
As to my personal opinion, I like almost any CD version, compressed or not from my favourite albums. I can not say, for instance, that Procol Harum first CDs sound better or worse than new remasters. Nor I can say that Judas Priest 2001 remasters are absoulte crap. Yes, they sound louder but that's not necessarily bad. Sometimes they are brighter but not much.
Finally, when CD versions were released, I remember being somewhat disapointed about a few albums: Mike Oldfield Five Miles Out, Deep Purple In Rock, UFO Phenomenon, Bob Welch Three Hearts. They sound a bit weak. Perhaps the hype of the CD was so big that I expected too much. And when I finally bought them I was like oh, where is all the energy? But that was perhaps psychologically. Because I expected a whole new audio experience. And these particular albums were to my ears a bit lacking in "energy" whatever that means. Yet they are some of my absoulte favorite albums and still love them as they are, vinyl, CD, CD remastered or whatever.
Here I have talked about rock, pop and metal and sometimes I think for such kind of music DR compression is unimportant.
As far as I know, classical music CD are never DR compressed and if done it would be a huge mistake, I guess.
But I wonder, is it a mistake to buy remasters? Or is it a case by case situation?
Are all remasters crap? Or are they any good as long as they keep a wide DR. If so, how much?
Thanks all.
Im confused about the so called loudness war.
First, I wonder why DR compression became a thing with CDs. It seems to me nobody was discussing loudness war before CD. But I might be wrong. Yes, there was DR compression but I don't remember it was an issue.
I have read that making music sound louder makes people wrongly think it sounds better, like louder=better, hence people buy it. But by the time CDs arrived, people were already enthusiastically buying DR uncompressed vinyl. So from the pure marketing point of view, I see no reason to DR compress music. There was no need to convice people to buy CDs. CDs where the real deal back then and everybody loved them. Then, what was the need to DR compress music when CD arrived? The argument that this was done purely for marketing reasons does not convince me. But Im no marketing expert and I might well be completely wrong.
My second question is perhaps a heresy. Can a DR compressed album (remastered) sound better (be more faithful) than the previously DR uncompressed version of it?
Let me explain. Lets take any Led Zeppelin album. It seems to me that the newer the version, the less dynamic range it has. There have been countless of versions of Led Zeppelin IV, for instance. As you go from vinyl to CD and as years go by, every newer version seem to have less DR. As far as I know, band members have been involved in the remasters. They seem to endorse all remasters. The same happens with Iron Maiden remasters. As far as I know, band members seem to claim their newer versions (remasters) sound better. Yet these newer versions have less DR. But can you argue against the artist? Fidelity seems to be related to being faithful to what the artist intended. If artists tell you their remasters sound better, does it make sense to argue against the artist?
Now, Im probably gonna say something very, very foolish because I know my knowledge is very limited (Im basically ignorant and I admit it): Is it possible that one particular album shows a very wide DR but in truth some of that wide DR is due to some very, very soft noise introduced in the recording process? I mean, very soft sounds or noise that are very soft but that should not be there, not part of the song, but somehow got their way into the final recording.... Then if you release a new version and you cut out such unwanted soft noise, DR might seem to be reduced when in fact, it is not.
Now, Im also confused because some people in music forums strongly (almost religiously) recommend to buy japanese remasters of old CDs. For instance, I have read people who absolutely recommend buying the japanese remasters of Judas Priest. But when I look for them, these japanese remasters are also heavily compressed. The same people consider the UK/US 2001 Judas Priest remasters to be absolute crap, but the newer Japanese remasters to be absolute gold. Yet the japanese remasters are heavily comporessed. So, why one must be better than the other? Why one compressed version is garbage while the other is diamond if both are DR compressed?
Finally, when getting into softer more instrumental music, I notice a trend. For instance, Mike Oldfield and Alan Parsons remasters seem to preserve more or less their original DR found in the vinyl. Still, CD versions are more compressed than vinyl versions but not much. In general terms remastered CDs from these artists have a fairly wide DR but never as much as vinyl.
As to my personal opinion, I like almost any CD version, compressed or not from my favourite albums. I can not say, for instance, that Procol Harum first CDs sound better or worse than new remasters. Nor I can say that Judas Priest 2001 remasters are absoulte crap. Yes, they sound louder but that's not necessarily bad. Sometimes they are brighter but not much.
Finally, when CD versions were released, I remember being somewhat disapointed about a few albums: Mike Oldfield Five Miles Out, Deep Purple In Rock, UFO Phenomenon, Bob Welch Three Hearts. They sound a bit weak. Perhaps the hype of the CD was so big that I expected too much. And when I finally bought them I was like oh, where is all the energy? But that was perhaps psychologically. Because I expected a whole new audio experience. And these particular albums were to my ears a bit lacking in "energy" whatever that means. Yet they are some of my absoulte favorite albums and still love them as they are, vinyl, CD, CD remastered or whatever.
Here I have talked about rock, pop and metal and sometimes I think for such kind of music DR compression is unimportant.
As far as I know, classical music CD are never DR compressed and if done it would be a huge mistake, I guess.
But I wonder, is it a mistake to buy remasters? Or is it a case by case situation?
Are all remasters crap? Or are they any good as long as they keep a wide DR. If so, how much?
Thanks all.