TLOS Sound Quality

[Mike's Beard]

Some of the tracks on my Rip Chords and Bruce & Terry cds sound awful on my mp3 yet fine on the cd so I guess some stuff is just incompatible with the mp3 format when converted?

[LostArt]

If you'd ever listened to Memory Almost Full by Macca, i find that much worse. That's the most horribly compressed CD i can think of.

Yeah.  That one, too. 

... with all that technology at our hands, all the formats available, we get crappier sound than that of a very average pressing of a Motown 45 in 1964.

It stinks.

It does indeed.

[absinthe_boy]

That's what I'M trying to say.  Hell TLOS sounds great to me.  I'm glad i'm not cursed like that.  I can tell when merda is in tune or not, and I can tell when things aren't clear, but TLOS sounds great, when I first got it I thought it was such a clean sounding, beautifully recorded cd. 

That would suck to not be able to stand any amount of compression on an album without hearing it, and making it 'unlistenable' as several people have called it on here. 

I am glad that I can tell the difference between a sonic dog's breakfast like TLOS (or Memory Almost Full) and a sonic marvel like SMiLE - both mastered by Bob Ludwig by the way. I listened to SMiLE on vinyl last night and it is a joy to listen to, the subtelties in the way the instruments interact together,

I really don't know what to say to someone who says TLOS sounds great. It is actually painful to listen to at any volume level. The lack of dynamic range gives your ears and brain no rest. The CD genuinely gives me a headache...and I am not one prone to headaches. And the tendancy to over emphasise the high frequencies to simulate even more loudness just sounds so wrong to me...especially when people sing words with the letter 'k' in them....you can hear it on "lucky old sun"...a pronounced click on the 'k' that is totally artificial, you never hear it in real life. The experience of listening to TLOS on the European CD is akin to listening to 40 minutes of white noise at high levels. Even side 2 of Peter Hamill's LP 'in camera' (which some reviews describe as 20 minutes of white noise) is more comfy on the ears....and that is a record *designed* to be disturbing.

I can listen to 'bad' recordings....1920's phonograph cylinder jazz records for example....but they aren't painful to listen to. Modern brickwalled, brightened CDs are literally painful.

I've only heard Memory Almost Full on vinyl and it is such a shame...because I find the music engaging and very agreeable...but I've only listened to the entire LP once. Compare to Chaos & Creation which sounds quite good.

As for ripping to MP3, it depends very much on how its done...as well as the source material. As with all digital formats, the compression algorithm used and the bitrate selected. An MP3 will never sound as good as the source digital material, but it might well sound almost indistinguishable on a portable device and sound good on a hi-fi.

Digital recording is not bad per se. DVD-Audio uses (up to) 9.6Mbps, 192KHz sampling rate, 24-bit resoultion .. DVD-A discs played on the correct equipment (not a regular DVD-video player) sound simply stunning....I am honestly not sure whether vinyl is better. I can say with certainty that DVD-A is the only domestic format whcih rivals vinyl...sadly not enough people cared enough about the difference and DVD-A has not succeeded.

The CD format is old, out of date and was flawed to begin with. The basis for the format was achieving 60 minutes of playback on a disc roughly 5 inches wide. in domestic equipment. By the time the format was finalised (the cusp of the 1970's and 80's) that meant 1400kbps given the wavelength of laser practical at the time....44.1KHz sampling rate with 16 bit resolution. Dynamic range is theoretically higher than that of a vinyl LP but in practise the extra dynamic range has never been used on a commercially available CD. From the mid 1990's onwards things have got worse with the gradual move towards brickwalling.

[Ron]

I've got to admit I was completely unaware of the plight of you audiophiles.  My ignorant self can listen to cassette tapes and car speakers with blown cones, and still enjoy the music.  I love music, listen to it constantly every day... I don't know what I'd do if low quality recordings made them 'unlistenable' to me. 

Have you considered seeing a doctor about this?  You're really out of the norm here, something's got to be wrong with either your ears, or your brain.  I'm telling you flat out: this isn't a problem for most people.  I'd go see an ear specialist and see why it is you can't enjoy a lot of sounds. 

[Runaways]

yeah i don't really pay attention to compression.  TLOS is fine to me.  BUT....memory almost full, i actually know what you guys mean.  It has this tinny sharp tone that actually makes for an unpleasant listen sometimes. 

[b00ts]

That's what I'M trying to say.  Hell TLOS sounds great to me.  I'm glad i'm not cursed like that.  I can tell when merda is in tune or not, and I can tell when things aren't clear, but TLOS sounds great, when I first got it I thought it was such a clean sounding, beautifully recorded cd. 

That would suck to not be able to stand any amount of compression on an album without hearing it, and making it 'unlistenable' as several people have called it on here. 

Digital recording is not bad per se. DVD-Audio uses (up to) 9.6Mbps, 192KHz sampling rate, 24-bit resoultion .. DVD-A discs played on the correct equipment (not a regular DVD-video player) sound simply stunning....I am honestly not sure whether vinyl is better. I can say with certainty that DVD-A is the only domestic format whcih rivals vinyl...sadly not enough people cared enough about the difference and DVD-A has not succeeded.

The CD format is old, out of date and was flawed to begin with. The basis for the format was achieving 60 minutes of playback on a disc roughly 5 inches wide. in domestic equipment. By the time the format was finalised (the cusp of the 1970's and 80's) that meant 1400kbps given the wavelength of laser practical at the time....44.1KHz sampling rate with 16 bit resolution. Dynamic range is theoretically higher than that of a vinyl LP but in practise the extra dynamic range has never been used on a commercially available CD. From the mid 1990's onwards things have got worse with the gradual move towards brickwalling.

Agreed about Chaos and Creation and Memory Almost Full. Electric Arguments doesn't suffer from the same brickwalling so it seems that McCartney learned his lesson - also, the deluxe version of EA included a DVD with high-resolution stereo mix of the album (24-bit 96khz) which sounds awesome.  Regarding MAF - since you enjoy the album, you will like the vinyl master, which is decently mastered, although it is pressed on thin vinyl.

I also have to agree that as much as I love the sound on vinyl, especially its unique bass response, high resolution digital is the best music format out there, whether is is DVD-Audio, Super Audio CD, or just high resolution FLAC/ALAC/OGG/et cetera. It is pure, with all the necessary headroom. I expect it to be pushed by the music industry in the next few years, especially considering that everything is recorded in 88.2 or 96khz nowadays. I would love to hear a high-res digital version of BWPS, for instance.

[Jay]

Can somebody explain to me just exactly what "brickwalling/brickwalled" means?

[the captain]

Can somebody explain to me just exactly what "brickwalling/brickwalled" means?

The images posted earlier in this thread are as good a description as you'll get. Basically, pumping volume on quieter parts as high as you can (so that they're as loud as loud parts) and often boosting certain frequencies, too. The idea is, you've boosted your tune to cut through the radio clutter. The reality is, everyone is turning it up, and up, and up.

[Runaways]

Owen Morris takes credit for that when he produced Oasis' debut album Definitely Maybe.   he claims anyway.  and it sounds freaking awesome on that album.  his might just be everything at the same volume, not really frequencies though.

[Jay]

Can somebody explain to me just exactly what "brickwalling/brickwalled" means?

The images posted earlier in this thread are as good a description as you'll get. Basically, pumping volume on quieter parts as high as you can (so that they're as loud as loud parts) and often boosting certain frequencies, too. The idea is, you've boosted your tune to cut through the radio clutter. The reality is, everyone is turning it up, and up, and up.

Thanks for the info. So, it basically means pushing up the high end to the point of distorting, or "warping" the sound?

[Jason]

Anything by Deutcshe Grammophon is good, if you enjoy classical/orchestral music. Phillips put out some fantastic vinyl before they attempted to destroy the market with the CD...for example Duke Ellington's Nutcracker Suite from 1960.

If we're talking classical vinyls, just for reference, the Melodiya label from the former Soviet Union; Deutsche Harmonia Mundi had good vinyls as well - if you can find a 1982 pressing of Sequentia's first album of Hildegard of Bingen's music, Symphoniae, you've hit a jackpot. The Hungarian Hungaroton label had some great releases. Supraphon from the former Czechoslovakia was also a master.

Honestly, the best classical vinyl I've ever heard is the original Walt Disney 1958 release of the Fantasia soundtrack, on 3 LPs. Before the digital age and Disney ruined the soundtrack, not to mention the beautiful sounds, that stands to this day as the BEST way to hear those recordings. For recordings made in a VERY primitive stereo, they explode from speakers. My mother actually wondered if there was an earthquake nearby while I was playing the version of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring ballet from that record. The dynamics are that stunning.

[The Heartical Don]

Owen Morris takes credit for that when he produced Oasis' debut album Definitely Maybe.   he claims anyway.  and it sounds freaking awesome on that album.  his might just be everything at the same volume, not really frequencies though.

  this is a real eye opener for me. I distinctly recall that way back in 1993 or so, Oasis' songs (even on the radio) sounded different to me, although I had no clue why. Somewhat flat, not the full-blooded r 'n' r that I was used to. I remember thinking: well, perhaps it's made to sound that way to create an effect in a large dance hall, a stadium, car radio, whatever...

[absinthe_boy]

I honestly feel sorry for somebody who can listen to music via speakers with blown cones and not lose any enjoyment. You're missing SO MUCH of the sublties of the recorded music, so much detail and replacing it with horrible distortion.

I've been told about those Disney Fantasia discs but have never managed to hear a set myself.

[Mike's Beard]

My hearing's a bit low in the left ear so I think I'm missing the subtleties in a lot of the music I listen to.

[Runaways]

Owen Morris takes credit for that when he produced Oasis' debut album Definitely Maybe.   he claims anyway.  and it sounds freaking awesome on that album.  his might just be everything at the same volume, not really frequencies though.

  this is a real eye opener for me. I distinctly recall that way back in 1993 or so, Oasis' songs (even on the radio) sounded different to me, although I had no clue why. Somewhat flat, not the full-blooded r 'n' r that I was used to. I remember thinking: well, perhaps it's made to sound that way to create an effect in a large dance hall, a stadium, car radio, whatever...

i'll disagree there cause oasis had a full bodied sound for those first two albums imo.  before the not so slow fall into horribleness, and the slow climb back to good.

[Jim McShane]

Can somebody explain to me just exactly what "brickwalling/brickwalled" means?

The images posted earlier in this thread are as good a description as you'll get. Basically, pumping volume on quieter parts as high as you can (so that they're as loud as loud parts) and often boosting certain frequencies, too. The idea is, you've boosted your tune to cut through the radio clutter. The reality is, everyone is turning it up, and up, and up.

Thanks for the info. So, it basically means pushing up the high end to the point of distorting, or "warping" the sound?

Even if the level wasn't bumping up against the level where SERIOUS distortion sets in, the lack of much (if any) difference between the passages that were intended to be the loudest and the passages that were intended to be softer deprives the music of much of its impact and essentially all of its subtlety. It makes it much less interesting when you deprive the listeners of the sound level cues.

Brickwalling simply stated means ALL the recorded sound is processed so it's all as loud as it can be without becoming SO distorted that it is near totally unlistenable.  But compression - the process that makes brickwalling possible by making all the sounds essentially the same volume/level - is a bad deal no matter what.

[hypehat]

If you want to hear uncompressed recordings, I think the majority of classical music cds have no compression on them at all (Is that actually true? they certainly sound softer than rock cds).

[absinthe_boy]

My hearing's a bit low in the left ear so I think I'm missing the subtleties in a lot of the music I listen to.

Brian's deaf in one ear but I bet he can hear them...he certainly could in 1966 and he was just as deaf as he is now.

[absinthe_boy]

If you want to hear uncompressed recordings, I think the majority of classical music cds have no compression on them at all (Is that actually true? they certainly sound softer than rock cds).

All commercially released CDs are compressed compared to the source material....but the available dynamic range of a red book CD is quite good. Classical CDs will be use minimal compression for sure.

In Greg Milner's book mentioned above, there are quotes from mastering engineers saying that they only compress and brickwall pop/rock releases because they know the classical audience cares more about the sound quality of the releases.

The thing is that pop/rock/jazz/folk....any music you care to name gains a lot of its emotional impact from the swoops and soars when the 'volume' gets louder and softer (crescendos, diminuendos, for the cognescenti). It really doesn't matter what type of music you are dealing with....you rip out the heart and soul if you compress the dynamic range.

[the captain]

It's my opinion that this topic always brings out the over-dramatic. Dynamics do not equal heart and soul, just one way of evoking it for listeners. All compression is not evil. Every technique is a viable option in an artist's bag. Yes, modern music is over-compressed and that causes ear fatigue. But record company execs aren't pissing in your beer and eating your children--they're trying to get their music noticed and sold. If the slightest exposure to modern recorded sound hurts your ears, that's a shame--just like if you can't tell the difference between well-recorded, well-mastered music and the opposite, that's a shame. My two cents, obviously previously (and possibly about to be again) disagreed with by people.

[Mike's Beard]

My hearing's a bit low in the left ear so I think I'm missing the subtleties in a lot of the music I listen to.

Brian's deaf in one ear but I bet he can hear them...he certainly could in 1966 and he was just as deaf as he is now.

Brian's a musical genius, I alas am not.

[Andrew G. Doe]

In Greg Milner's book mentioned above, there are quotes from mastering engineers saying that they only compress and brickwall pop/rock releases because they know the classical audience cares more about the sound quality of the releases.

Am I alone in finding that astonishingly arrogant ? Like the pop/rock audience, the classical one ranges through the spectrum from those who listen on a boom box in the kitchen to the geek who listens more to the equipment than the music. Anyone who thinks this isn't doing their job properly, rather they're thinking "ah, it's just this crappy pop stuff, faders up to 11, they won't notice the difference, all they want is volume". How would they like it if a mechanic said to himself while servicing their car, "hell, it's just a Toyota, I won't check the tracking, they won't notice" ?

[Wirestone]

I don't think they mean to be arrogant. Not really.

One large part of classical composition is dynamics. (A symphony orchestra is as big as it is for a reason -- it can play incredibly soft or incredibly loud.) And lots of classical listeners care about telling a pianissimo apart from a piano apart from mezzo-piano apart from a mezzo-forte and so on. And because of that, classical CDs tend to (not always, but tend to) be mastered so there is a really audible distinction between soft and loud.

Rock/pop music has seldom depended upon dynamics for quite the same purposes or effects as classical ensembles. I mean, a rock group already plays in a much more constrained dynamic range because amplification makes every instrument a potential equal (there's a reason you have dozens of violins and only a handful of horns in an orchestra, for instance).

So that has left engineers with a lot more freedom to decide how a pop/rock record should sound. The optimal symphonic record sounds like, in most cases, one thing: an accurate reproduction of a symphony orchestra playing in a hall with good acoustics. An optimal rock/pop record sounds like -- what? A band playing in a pub? A band playing in an arena? What about playing in your living room? How about some swirling mixture of treated tones that could never be reproduced outside a studio?

Rock records sound like all of the above. And then some. The Beatles, for instance, had quite compressed, punchy sounding records (for the time). And they were produced by someone why knew (and had produced) classical. So was George Martin condescending or arrogant to the Beatles and their listeners? Of course not. He knew that a different kind of music required a different kind of mix and mastering to present it best.

Now. This is all separate from what happens when you push the levels up so high that you begin to get actively distorted sound. I think if that's what a band wants, it's okay. But on something like Memory Almost Full (which I've heard firsthand and does audibly distort) or the European pressing of TLOS (which I have not), it's not particularly connected to what the records are trying to be.

[Jay]

If you really want to hear a good example of distortion as a result of a poor mastering job, find an original 1989 cd pressing of "Special" by The Temptations. 

[Andrew G. Doe]

I don't think they mean to be arrogant. Not really.

Maybe that's not the intent, but that's how it comes across... and there are raucous classical pieces just as there as soft rock/pop pieces: would any capable engineer master, say, the first CSN album in the same way as Iron Butterfly ?  In its early days, yes, rock was all about noise, but that stopped being the prime factor by the late 50s (Buddy Holly springs to mind). If you're going to master any recording, you give it the attention it demands irrespective of genre. Radio these days isn't as aurally restricting as it once was, and I for one listen to my music mostly at home, not on the radio.