Compression and Clipping on TLOS - is it that bad?

[Jim McShane]

So I was thinking - maybe I was just having a bad day when I listened to the TLOS CD the first time. I decided today that to break in a newly restored Citation II tube amp I just finished I'd sit and listen to it again. Maybe it was just me...

I got through Good Kind of Love and just couldn't stand anymore. I skipped ahead to Can't Wait Too Long - and it's a mess. It takes real skill to mess up that piece of music to the point where I had to shut it off.

Of course, to ensure it wasn't the amp, I plugged in another CD -  all was fine.

I'd like to publicly thank everyone involved in making the CD. I now have a great example of how BAD one can sound. It is utter, total garbage, and the people who made it that way should be fired.  Wonderful music, beautifully performed - and then trashed by people who apparently can't differentiate between Brian Wilson and Li'l Kim.

 

I can't recommend the CD to anyone in good conscience, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

Sorry for the rant.

[absinthe_boy]

CDs are always compressed. Since when I don't know, but I'd say since some time in the sixties and definitely in the seventies. The mastering process always involves some EQ and some compression, so to say that the TLOS CD is definitely compressed is clearly true.

Normalising can be useful in that it means that the loudest part of your tracks will be the same across your entire album. Audio tracks are more than likely normalised individually long before the mix-down anyway.

What I mean is that the CD is clearly more compressed than the LP. Given that (theoretically) a Red Book CD could have a greater dynamic range than an LP that is mystifying. Whoever prepared the final CD master has not brickwalled it...but they have compressed more than was necessary. And I imagine anyone with a half decent ear can hear it.

Normalising can be useful. But it can also be awful. I was just using it as an example of a tool available to everyone, and which is probably ill-understood by many. Are you really suggesting that no tracks should be quiet?

[I assume when you say CDs have been compressed for dacades you really mean music recordings...CDs were not available until 1982 so no CDs were compressed in the 70's because they did not exist].

[absinthe_boy]

I skipped ahead to Can't Wait Too Long - and it's a mess. It takes real skill to mess up that piece of music to the point where I had to shut it off.

I would say that Can't Wait Too Long is perhaps the most beautiful moment on the LP.

Do yourself a favour...buy the LP....if you have a tube amp you surely have a turntable...

[Jim McShane]

I skipped ahead to Can't Wait Too Long - and it's a mess. It takes real skill to mess up that piece of music to the point where I had to shut it off.

I would say that Can't Wait Too Long is perhaps the most beautiful moment on the LP.

Do yourself a favour...buy the LP....if you have a tube amp you surely have a turntable...

Thanks, that's what I'm going to do - and it's forcing me to finish the work on my new phono preamp too. Right at this second I can't play vinyl - but soon, VERY soon.

I have a very good table, a fully Merrill modified AR (improved motor, acrylic subchassis and armboard, 5 layer plinth, lead coated precision balanced platter with high accuracy machined spindle and spindle bearing, etc.), with a Shure SME 3009 arm; and I use a Shure V-15 type V MR cartridge. Vinyl sounds really good at my house  - when I have a phono pre to play it through! 

[Mr. Cohen]

I'm no expert, but TLOS does have a very unique sound. In any of Brian's production, there is always a tendency for elements to get buried or appear out of place. In TLOS, everything, from the bass to the percussion to the main vocals and the background vocals, is pushed to the forefront. Everything is big, loud, and crystal clear, which is an accomplishment in a way. It was an interesting approach and I can't say I dislike it, although it definitely deviates from the feel I would associate with BW and other classic rock/oldies productions. Actually, the production reminds me of Van Dyke Parks in a way, especially the way the strings and horns interact with the rest of the mix.

[The Heartical Don]

At the risk of interrupting a fruitful and entertaining discussion: I bought the Little Feat anthology 'As Time Goes By' a week ago, it is available in Europe for beer money now (approx. $ 5); it is from 1993, according to allmusic.com, and it sounds utterly fantastic. Perhaps an ever so slight hiss (like an old LP would); but/and (choose your preference) the sound is big and beautiful, and very dynamic (Texas Twister is a case in point, that's the song that borrows a few riffs from 'Get Back').
Is it so good because there was no tampering with the tapes in the first place?

(allmusic says it's not available in the States - your loss, folks).

[Jonathan Blum]

So basically this thread has proved that the CD sounds OK to people who think CDs sound OK, that people who can't stand how CDs sound can't stand how this CD sounds, and that the vinyl mix sounds quite a bit better to vinylistas.

Glad that's settled, then.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

[endofposts]

I haven't read this whole thread, but can someone explain to me how good modern vinyl can sound when the original material is recorded digitally?  In some cases, also mastered digitally.  How can it possibly make that much difference?  Especially if you have a low-end turntable or cartridge.  And maybe the rest of your playback setup has modern digital electronics.  I've never bought modern vinyl LP's for that reason, only the older ones that are all-analog. 

[Jim McShane]

So basically this thread has proved that the CD sounds OK to people who think CDs sound OK, that people who can't stand how CDs sound can't stand how this CD sounds, and that the vinyl mix sounds quite a bit better to vinylistas.

Glad that's settled, then.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

No, it's proved that you can take a very capable (if not perfect or the "ultimate") recording medium - the compact disc - and make it sound like crap. The rationale for doing it is that people can't tell/don't care. I think we've proven some people CAN tell and DO care.

[Jim McShane]

I haven't read this whole thread, but can someone explain to me how good modern vinyl can sound when the original material is recorded digitally?  In some cases, also mastered digitally.  How can it possibly make that much difference?  Especially if you have a low-end turntable or cartridge.  And maybe the rest of your playback setup has modern digital electronics.  I've never bought modern vinyl LP's for that reason, only the older ones that are all-analog. 

Modern vinyl can sound VERY good, in fact it can sound better in many cases than older vinyl.

It all boils down to the care that is put into the process. Careful mastering with very mild or no compression/limiting; proper microphone technique in the studio; top notch mixing consoles; really good monitor equipment - put that together with a really good engineer (like Doug Sax, or Michael Bishop from Telarc) and a desire to make a really good sounding record, not just another loud piece of crap.

Use the best techniques for transferring the recoding to the recording master discs. Or use the "direct-to-disc" technique.

Then press it on to super high quality vinyl (which has been available for almost 30 years - JVC "Super-Vinyl" was available in the late 70s). And don't run so many copies you wear out the stampers.

I don't know if you like any classical music but if you listen to some of the Telarc digitally recorded LPs it'll amaze you. In fact, they pressed a vinyl LP by Papa Doo Run Run called "California Project" - it's all BBs tunes played by PDRR but recorded with the care a classical LP would get from Telarc. It's amazing! See if you can find one in good shape and buy it - you'll be glad you did!

Remember, no matter how bad or good your equipment is at home it can NEVER sound better than the source material.

[Jonathan Blum]

No, it's proved that you can take a very capable (if not perfect or the "ultimate") recording medium - the compact disc - and make it sound like crap.

But it doesn't sound like crap.

The fact that you care, passionately -- some might say excessively -- doesn't make your ears and taste any more of a true objective reality than mine.

Cheers,
Jon Blum

[absinthe_boy]

So basically this thread has proved that the CD sounds OK to people who think CDs sound OK, that people who can't stand how CDs sound can't stand how this CD sounds, and that the vinyl mix sounds quite a bit better to vinylistas.

Glad that's settled, then.

I believe I have demonstrated that the vinyl is less compressed than the CD, and has a greater dynamic range.

The point, as far as I am concerned, is that the CD is more compressed than it needed to be.

[Jonathan Blum]

I believe I have demonstrated that the vinyl is less compressed than the CD, and has a greater dynamic range.

The point, as far as I am concerned, is that the CD is more compressed than it needed to be.

Yeah, that bit's pretty much an objective fact.

The bit where it starts being subjective is where an individual person leaps from "more compressed" to "bad", "hideous", "unlistenable", et cetera.  It's possible to recognize a difference without thinking it's a very significant one, never mind a catastrophic one!

And after nearly forty years in which we saw that the quality of "Smile" shone through in bootlegs despites all sorts of obvious quality defects, from wobbly tape master speeds to low sample rates to hasty unfinished mono work-mixes, you'd think we'd be able to put all this sort of stuff in perspective...

Cheers,
Jon Blum

[absinthe_boy]

But this isn't a boot, it is an official release....and we know the CD SHOULD sould better than it apparently does. We listened to all those unofficial SMiLE recordings because nothing else was available.

It is a disappointment that someone has seen fit to make the recording worse than it could and should have been....the vinyl proves that somewhere exists a relatively uncompressed master...

[chris.metcalfe]

Technically, CDs don't use compression (unlike MP3 etc). The effect you're describing is 16/44.1 red-book CD's ability to recreate the analogue waveform. Logically, analogue turntables should do this better, but are subject to a huge variety of physical engineering constraints, as well as the RIAA curve. Best to realise that the CD standard was set in about 1980 (as hinted at above), which is the equivalent of asking everyone with a digital camera to be happy with 1.5 megapixels. Also quite amusing to remember that Philips only introduced the CD as a by-product of the failed Laserdisc (video) system - no-one in 1976 wanted to buy pre-recorded films on an optical disc!! The fact that a lot of CDs, on well-designed CD players, sound great, is a miracle!

[Jim McShane]

But it doesn't sound like crap.

Okay, we disagree on that. But have you ever heard so many people complain about sound quality/audio fidelity on a BW release? So whether you agree or not, there is something going on here that is an issue for a lot of people.

The fact that you care, passionately -- some might say excessively -- doesn't make your ears and taste any more of a true objective reality than mine.

Don't hide behind the "some might say" stuff, it's no different than any other opinion whether others think it "excessive" or not. And while generally I'd agree about ears and taste - in this case I don't. I make part of my living designing/redesigning/modifying home audio reproducing equipment. I have to have a good sense of what sounds good and sounds not so good.

Let me share a couple quotes about my work, this first was from an exhibitor at the high end audio show (part of the CES) in Las Vegas:

"This week, I’ve listened to a number of amps that are staggering in price. Beyond staggering, an extra zero after staggering… and I honestly believe that the Citation blows them all away. Couple that with the fact that you can run a passive with the Citation, you get a $10k handicap to start! If you are in the market for an amp, talk to Jim McShane."

A few more, from 3 other customers of mine:

"I am past due in my thanks at the outcome of your much appreciated labor. This is without a doubt the finest amp I have ever had in my system and perhaps the best I have ever heard! "Awesome" comes to mind."

"VERY nice sounding. This is a very detailed amp. I put on one of the 192Khz DVD-A's of Mozart... very beautiful full sound, very natural, with very detailed highs, with no harshness at all. Hearing this amp reminds me of when I heard DVD-A in my system for the first time - has the highs and details with more fullness and without the little bit of shrillness of the CDs I own that have good detail up top. Wife agrees about that... Instruments seem to *really* be separable, which I really like! I kind of expected it to be detailed, but it doesn't sound harsh at all. I halfway expected it to have a sort of harsh sound to it in the stock configuration, not so at all I think."

"...there is something about the harmonic balance and sonic structure of the McShane Citation that seems to tower over everything else."

One last quote - note who it's from (he's most famous for his work on the Frank Zappa remastering/authoring):

"... thanks so much for your help. Everything looks great and sounds great... Thanks again. I'll order another kit when I rebuild the other one (Cit II) I've got." Spencer Chrislu, from the Warner Bros. DVD-A group.

I'm not trying to brag, I just want people reading this to understand where I'm coming from. I AM a critical listener, I have to be!

I'm sure in your career field you are much more competent than I. But in the audio reproduction and sound quality fields I think I can speak with more than the average person's background and authority.

Finally, there IS an objective reality here. There are measurements available right on this board that show the corruption of the audio signal on this CD.

So as far as I'm concerned, the bottom line is this CD - while okay for some - is probably the worst sounding CD I've ever heard. I would never try to sell an amp I designed or reworked if it sounded as bad as this CD.

[Jim McShane]

Technically, CDs don't use compression (unlike MP3 etc). The effect you're describing is 16/44.1 red-book CD's ability to recreate the analogue waveform. Logically, analogue turntables should do this better, but are subject to a huge variety of physical engineering constraints, as well as the RIAA curve. Best to realise that the CD standard was set in about 1980 (as hinted at above), which is the equivalent of asking everyone with a digital camera to be happy with 1.5 megapixels. Also quite amusing to remember that Philips only introduced the CD as a by-product of the failed Laserdisc (video) system - no-one in 1976 wanted to buy pre-recorded films on an optical disc!! The fact that a lot of CDs, on well-designed CD players, sound great, is a miracle!

Umm, again I have to correct something. CDs DO use compression, I think you are confusing the process done in the analog domain vs. the digital domain. So while it's done differently CDs do indeed get compressed - as long as you and I agree that compression means reducing the difference between the loudest and softest sounds recorded on the disc.

There are indeed physical issues to wrestle with when translating the movement of the stylus in a groove into a high quality audio signal, but you seem to imply the RIAA curve is bad. Not so! Without the RIAA equalization your vinyl records wold be awful sounding. For those who don't know - when the audio signal is put on a vinyl disc the bass is cut WAYYY back and the treble is boosted WAYYY up. The cut in the bass enables the stylus to track the bass signals -  at full level the sylus could not possibly follow the trace and would literally jump out of the groove!

Part of the job of your phono preamp is to apply an equalization curve that is the exact opposite of the signal on the LP. Your preamp boosts the bass way up, back to the level it was at before it was cut to fit on the record; it also cuts the treble back to the proper level which has the desired side effect of reducing the surface noise present on any LP.

The RIAA curve is the current standard - before the industry standardized on it there were probably half a dozen different curves used - London, AES, LP, 78, and even flat. Part of this was because the magnetic phono cartridge didn't appear for many years after the phonograph record. Before that cartridges had all sorts of diffferent characteristics that had to be compensated for.

You can think of the RIAA equalization as sort of the "red book" of it's day.

The 44.1K 16 bit red book CD standard is quite capable of delivering superb performance. Again, as I said before I have CDs in my collection that will simply blow you away. Yes, the format has some limitations, but especially as compared to MP3s it is a much better medium. MP3s in essence throw away digital bits and attempt to reconstruct them with mathematical derivations called algorithms. MP3s truncate the digital word length to reduce the storage size needed, and in the process there is a loss of fidelity.

Conceptually similar algorithms are used by red book CD players as well. This allows them to reconstruct the audio signal more accurately than would be possible without them.  If you go back and click on the Chicago Mastering link I posted earlier, then click on the "white paper" link you'll see how this works.

JVC claims their XRCD encoding algorithm offers the performance of an 18 bit digital word - that's no small feat!

The people who committed TLOS to CD cannot hide behind the limitations of the format. While the CD format does have limitations, the recording of TLOS is a clear example of how bad CDs can sound. There are hundreds of CDs that are well recorded and are a joy to hear - sadly, this great music made by BW and his band is not, to put it mildly.

[Jim McShane]

Oops, sorry. Hit the wrong button...

[chris.metcalfe]

Not going to quote your post Jim! Thanks for the reply.

My point about RIAA (i.e. phono equalisation) is that there is a big difference between doing it well and badly - i.e., it's another barrier to the simple reproduction of the stereo LP. As far as physical engineering goes, tomes have been written (and continue to be) on the design of turntables/arms/cartridges and phono stages - it's an ongoing process of continous improvement, even 60-odd years after its invention (the LP that is).

As far as compression on CD, I guess I was referring to CD being a medium which has the potential to remain uncompressed - part of the red book design - which MP3 and some other computer audio, by their nature, don't. (As opposed to 'signal limiting' which is what you're referring to?).

Apropos of very little, but reference to a query above about levels of LP reproduction. I have a Rega P3-24 t/t which doesn't cost a fortune (at least here in the UK), but uses, among other things, an incredibly precise power supply to the AC motor which produces stunningly accurate sound from all ages and types of LP. Sorry to diverge away from the joys of digital compression waveforms... This is not an advert...

[Jim McShane]

Not going to quote your post Jim! Thanks for the reply.

You are most welcome!

My point about RIAA (i.e. phono equalisation) is that there is a big difference between doing it well and badly - i.e., it's another barrier to the simple reproduction of the stereo LP. As far as physical engineering goes, tomes have been written (and continue to be) on the design of turntables/arms/cartridges and phono stages - it's an ongoing process of continous improvement, even 60-odd years after its invention (the LP that is).

You won't get any argument from me on what you just wrote! The good thing is that nowadays even a "middle of the road" vinyl setup can be very satisfying to listen to. The level of development of LP reproduction has reached the point where titanic struggles are going on to make tiny improvements. Advancing the state of the art is tough in a field with nearly 100 years of development.

Hey, at least we don't have to listen to old GE or Weathers crystal cartridges! 

As far as compression on CD, I guess I was referring to CD being a medium which has the potential to remain uncompressed - part of the red book design - which MP3 and some other computer audio, by their nature, don't. (As opposed to 'signal limiting' which is what you're referring to?).

It certainly can be uncompressed, or VERY mildly compressed - it has the capability. I think you and I agree on signal limiting or compression - I think we're just using different words to describe the same result.

Apropos of very little, but reference to a query above about levels of LP reproduction. I have a Rega P3-24 t/t which doesn't cost a fortune (at least here in the UK), but uses, among other things, an incredibly precise power supply to the AC motor which produces stunningly accurate sound from all ages and types of LP. Sorry to diverge away from the joys of digital compression waveforms... This is not an advert...

Rega has made nice tables for a long time. I can't recall what type of motor they use.

If anyone is still reading this thread, here's a nice page on how turntables are driven:

http://www.kabusa.com/ttdrive.htm

I think I've probably made all the points I can make and/or worn out my welcome, so I'll bow out here. Thanks for writing back Chris!!

[SloopJohnB]

If anyone is still reading this thread, here's a nice page on how turntables are driven:

http://www.kabusa.com/ttdrive.htm

Thanks for all your informative posts - they're very well written and enjoyable. 

But please, PLEASE, don't start a "belt drive or direct drive?" thread! Threads like that have killed thousands of message boards!     

(that said, I'm pleased to read that my SL1200 mk2 turntable has the best drive system available!  Many people think that SL1200's are only good for DJs, but I personally think that with a good setup it can become a remarkable audiophile turntable, for a reasonable price)

[Andrew G. Doe]

I'm no audiophile nor a vinyl junkie... but the fact is, the first time I listened to my TLOS CD my reaction was "WTF ??  This sounds terrible !" - actually had to stop listening.  Listened to it on different systems from my PC to a friends high-end equipment... and it sucked on all of them.  Since buying my first CD in 1986, I have never heard such a poor sound from a commercial release. Don't care what Bob Ludwig says, don't care what anyone else thinks - there is something very, very wrong with the sonics on this release. The only way I can listen to it is, why I have no idea, on my iPod. It's tempting to contact EMI/Capitol and complain that this product is faulty - because it is. A CD you can't listen to.

[SloopJohnB]

I'm no audiophile nor a vinyl junkie... but the fact is, the first time I listened to my TLOS CD my reaction was "WTF ??  This sounds terrible !" - actually had to stop listening.  Listened to it on different systems from my PC to a friends high-end equipment... and it sucked on all of them.  Since buying my first CD in 1986, I have never heard such a poor sound from a commercial release. Don't care what Bob Ludwig says, don't care what anyone else thinks - there is something very, very wrong with the sonics on this release. The only way I can listen to it is, why I have no idea, on my iPod. It's tempting to contact EMI/Capitol and complain that this product is faulty - because it is. A CD you can't listen to.

...Consider yourself lucky. I've converted the album to 256k mp3s and they still sound crappy on my mp3 player (not an iPod; an Archos). I feel a sudden urge to quote the great Walter Yetnikoff: "I think I've been fudged". 

Thankfully, I also have the vinyl edition, which provides a decent listening experience.

[Wirestone]

Finally, there IS an objective reality here. There are measurements available right on this board that show the corruption of the audio signal on this CD.

I think the word "corruption" is taking it a bit far. There are some waveforms that show clipping at certain loud points or loud tracks. As has been demonstrated, there are many other CDs that are far worse.

What I wonder is this: What do the waveforms on the other BW CDs look like?

Because as odd as it sounds, my impression was that this was the most "natural" sounding of the BW CD releases. Crazy me. I would just like to see some track to track comparisons with "Imagination," "GIOMH," and "Smile."

Given that Scotty (and Brian and a SB confidant) mixed this (and I assume instructed Ludwig on the mastering), it would seem responsibility should go to him, too.

[Jim McShane]

I think the word "corruption" is taking it a bit far. There are some waveforms that show clipping at certain loud points or loud tracks. As has been demonstrated, there are many other CDs that are far worse.

Use whatever word you like - altered, changed,  whatever. All it meant was "not a faithful reproduction of the tracks as originally recorded".

What I wonder is this: What do the waveforms on the other BW CDs look like?

Beats me, I have no real idea. I'd bet Imagination is pretty heavily squeezed though. I never listen to GIOMH other than Desert Drive so I don't really recall what it sounds like.

Given that Scotty (and Brian and a SB confidant) mixed this (and I assume instructed Ludwig on the mastering), it would seem responsibility should go to him, too.

As I said earlier - I don't know who is responsible, and I don't care. I feel just like AGD - his exclamation of "WTF" was my sentiments exactly. And this is the only BW CD I feel that way about.