Compression and Clipping on TLOS - is it that bad?

[brother john]

Used some audio software on my TLOS - a bit of stereo expander - bought up some intrumental lines wonderfully - gave the BV's better seperation and punch - thus smoothed 'in' the dodgy vocal moments from BW (most noticable on MAD- it's now georgeous) as a unexpected bonus.

Wow! What did you use?

[Dr. Tim]

Those new audio expanders are digital versions of similar equipment made by dbx in the 70s and 80s, and that was their job - to compress (or uncompress via the expander) music tracks that sounded a bit too hyper-processed.  Has to be done discreetly, of course.

As for Andrew's download issue, 126 kbps is a LOW quality download bit rate for putting an mp3 song on a player.  Just the calculations required to lose all the "extraneous" data to lower the bit rate that far might produce an "Aliasing" effect.  Try ripping the tracks at a higher standard.  I try to use 320 kbps wherever I can, unless whoever supplied the download gives you a lower bitrate (i.e., when you buy an LP and you get a code for a free mp3 download).

Warning to downloaders: unless your iPod or other player is especially tweaky, when one song segues to another you will hear an audible "Burp" as the track changes.  The only way to lose that FX is to rip the entire suite into a sound editing program and paste the whole thing into one continuous track, with no breaks, that will play back with no burps once down-converted to mp3.

[Dr. Tim]

Otherwise I was going to write that I got and very  much enjoyed a new US copy of TLOS. I thought it held together much better than I'd thought it would, and it sounded pleasant and punchy and musical through the big speakers.  No HDCD encoding, though, since Mark Linett did not master it, Bob Ludwig did, and he couldn't be bothered with another encoding process.

But since I see the cognoscenti's consensus here on the board is the album bites and the CD sound resembles an iron building collapsing, I will henceforth STFU on music reviews.

[Andrew G. Doe]

As for Andrew's download issue, 126 kbps is a LOW quality download bit rate for putting an mp3 song on a player.  Just the calculations required to lose all the "extraneous" data to lower the bit rate that far might produce an "Aliasing" effect.  Try ripping the tracks at a higher standard.  I try to use 320 kbps wherever I can, unless whoever supplied the download gives you a lower bitrate (i.e., when you buy an LP and you get a code for a free mp3 download).

I think you're misunderstanding me. When I ripped the CD to my iPod the perceived sound quality increased - it's the CD I have sonic issues with, and in this I'm far from alone.

[The Heartical Don]

As for Andrew's download issue, 126 kbps is a LOW quality download bit rate for putting an mp3 song on a player.  Just the calculations required to lose all the "extraneous" data to lower the bit rate that far might produce an "Aliasing" effect.  Try ripping the tracks at a higher standard.  I try to use 320 kbps wherever I can, unless whoever supplied the download gives you a lower bitrate (i.e., when you buy an LP and you get a code for a free mp3 download).

I think you're misunderstanding me. When I ripped the CD to my iPod the perceived sound quality increased - it's the CD I have sonic issues with, and in this I'm far from alone.

I think 'perceived' is the operative word here. I have numerous Naxos Historical releases, classic studio recordings from the '30s. They were lovingly restored from collector's shellac 78s. I'd place a safe bet that they don't fulfill today's standards by any criterion, be it dynamics, frequency range, perhaps even some flutter effects, god knows. But man, they sound musical. and better than a lot of today's state-of-the-art material. 'Musical' is also what drove listeners on a budget to NAD amps in the 80s, 90s, and noughties too. I have a NAD set and wouldn't trade it for any other.

[Dr. Tim]

OK I did misread AGD's post -- and it helps to recheck the whole thread.  While I have not heard the TLOS UK CD, it is entirely possible it does sound worse than the US version -- but how could that be?  Esp. if they're supposed to use the bit-by-bit copy of Bob Ludwig's final master?  Because, as is noted above, artifacts like extra jitter can creep in -- not just during the duplicating process, but maybe, as one writer noted, someone in the UK plant decided the sound needed "improving."   I know of many alternative artists out here who complain that the manufactured discs they got back from the label or the pressing plant did not match the final master they'd sent to the plant.   I think one recent CD by Steely Dan is one of the more famous examples in the mainstream context.  Though I confess I don't know how using a low mp3 conversion bit rate would improve the overall sound.  Usually that sort of thing makes the sound more brittle, not less.  Can some of the tech-savvy assist us here?

[Jim McShane]

If the UK release is worse than the US you have my deepest sympathy. Because the US CD is the worst CD I've ever heard. I find the US CD literally unlistenable - I'm not using that as a figure of speech either. I can't stand to listen to it. I did listen once, and I never will again. I'll get the vinyl and if it's better I'll throw the CD in the trash. If the vinyl is no better then I'll do without until something I can stand to listen to is available.

It is the audio equivalent of having a 150 watt bulb 6" from your face.

Who in Brian's camp approved that mess? Or was the final product altered after it got approved? If nobody in Brian's camp checked the sound of the final master I'll be amazed. So that means either someone from BW land did approve it - or it was changed after approval. And if THAT's the case somebody needs to hold Capitol accountable for the dreck on that disc...

Here's this terrific piece of music, from a noted and respected composer, possibly the final major work of his career - and once again someone has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Disgusting is the word that keeps coming to mind...

[LostArt]

Well, this is just weird.  Both of the discs that I bought at Best Buy (the bonus tracks version and the CD/DVD version) here in Wisconsin sound great.  It is mastered loud, but no louder than most new CDs, and I hear no clipping or harshness.  It's not near as bad as Memory Almost Full, which is almost unlistenable to my ears.  Now, I am 52, and my ears are not what they once were, but I am a musician and I know when something sounds bad. 

[The Heartical Don]

Well, this is just weird.  Both of the discs that I bought at Best Buy (the bonus tracks version and the CD/DVD version) here in Wisconsin sound great.  It is mastered loud, but no louder than most new CDs, and I hear no clipping or harshness.  It's not near as bad as Memory Almost Full, which is almost unlistenable to my ears.  Now, I am 52, and my ears are not what they once were, but I am a musician and I know when something sounds bad. 

Can you Fedex me around 10 cans filled with Wisconsin air then?

[GoofyJeff]

Can you Fedex me around 10 cans filled with Wisconsin air then?

Nothing like the smell of cow poopy in the morning to wake you up   

*Wisconsinite but no longer living near any farms*

ETA: so merda is now poopy   That's funny 

[Dr. Tim]

Well well well, I don't know, it's a mystery...

The Best Buy version would have to be a separate master from the "un-bonused" version, maybe some further tweaking occurred in that process?  Is that the one that sounds better or worse?

The LP master would presumably have to be checked and adjusted so as not to overload the cutter, and also to place the side break.  That, plus the little bit of high-end roll-off most LP mastering guys use (but won't admit to), would produce a slightly "warmer" sound. 

Is there any metadata in the CD master which might interfere sonically?  Not common things like track info and artwork, but things lke the spyware hidden in the first pressings of Neil Diamond's "12 Songs".

And maybe a further variation could be that discs made in one plant were done with more care than discs made in another.

My brain hurts.

[The Heartical Don]

Well well well, I don't know, it's a mystery...

The Best Buy version would have to be a separate master from the "un-bonused" version, maybe some further tweaking occurred in that process?  Is that the one that sounds better or worse?

The LP master would presumably have to be checked and adjusted so as not to overload the cutter, and also to place the side break.  That, plus the little bit of high-end roll-off most LP mastering guys use (but won't admit to), would produce a slightly "warmer" sound. 

Is there any metadata in the CD master which might interfere sonically?  Not common things like track info and artwork, but things lke the spyware hidden in the first pressings of Neil Diamond's "12 Songs".

And maybe a further variation could be that discs made in one plant were done with more care than discs made in another.

My brain hurts.

We are entering dangerous territory now. Before we know, we'll be like the Hoffmannites. Bevare, bevare, as Bela Lugosi would have it... 

[Jim McShane]

I bought the CD/DVD combo at Best Buy. So whatever master was used for that is what I have.

Dr. Tim, it's not a frequency response issue, it's that the disc has a dynamic range that is hardly over 5db. And I'd bet (I can't prove it) is has jitter like crazy.

The "glare" is like nothing I've ever experienced, it literally repels me. I can't stand to be in the same room with it.

Hey - maybe I could use the CD as a pest repellent device!   

[warnakey]

To throw in my 2 cents to the debate, the mixing and mastering on this record was one of the things that impressed me the most. I think sonically, it sounds great. It has wonderful dynamics (switching from loud parts to quiet) and the full stops where the volume completely drops are done perfectly.

I actually am pretty impressed by this record's production.

[gsmile]

I bought the CD/DVD the other day and the sound on the CD is definitely weird.  By now I'm used to overly hot CDs and this one is definitely HOT.  But the thing that I found really bizarre is that it already sounds like a compressed mp3, and not a very good one at that.  Listen to the beginning of MAD to hear the best example of this.  Brian sounds almost underwater; the whole thing has that wishy-washy underwater sound that badly encoded mp3s have.  Does anyone else hear this?

[Andreas]

I bought the CD/DVD combo at Best Buy. So whatever master was used for that is what I have.

Dr. Tim, it's not a frequency response issue, it's that the disc has a dynamic range that is hardly over 5db. And I'd bet (I can't prove it) is has jitter like crazy.

You can always extract the CD on your PC and listen from the files. This eliminates the jitter and all other factors ocurring from the particular pressing quality, and leaves you with nothing else than the recording, mixing and mastering quality. I found it still harsh and compressed.

[Andreas]

I bought the CD/DVD the other day and the sound on the CD is definitely weird.  By now I'm used to overly hot CDs and this one is definitely HOT.  But the thing that I found really bizarre is that it already sounds like a compressed mp3, and not a very good one at that.  Listen to the beginning of MAD to hear the best example of this.  Brian sounds almost underwater; the whole thing has that wishy-washy underwater sound that badly encoded mp3s have.  Does anyone else hear this?

I hear this very clearly, and it certainly means that Brian's vocals were heavily processed.

It's interesting to compare it with the demo which I prefer, where there seems to be less processing/autotuning, but much more reverb which makes Brain's voice sound even less real. Pick your poison.

[Andrew G. Doe]

To throw in my 2 cents to the debate, the mixing and mastering on this record was one of the things that impressed me the most. I think sonically, it sounds great. It has wonderful dynamics (switching from loud parts to quiet) and the full stops where the volume completely drops are done perfectly.

I actually am pretty impressed by this record's production.

We're talking about the same album ? That Lucky Old Sun, now known in my houshold as Everything Louder Than Everything Else ?

[Jonas]

Well, have you heard him sing Surf's Up?

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

[sockittome]

Hey - maybe I could use the CD as a pest repellent device!   

Insects, rodents, or humans?

[Jim McShane]

Hey - maybe I could use the CD as a pest repellent device!   

Insects, rodents, or humans?

Yes.

[Jonathan Blum]

Man, if this is what being an audio expert does to you... I'm glad that I'm cloth-eared enough to know how fantastic this album is!

Cheers,
Jon Blum

[chris.metcalfe]

...and as someone for whom my pristine vinyl copy of Surfer Girl still sounds as good as anything I can place on my expensive turntable, I'm very glad I haven't bought TLOS. Such a shame.

[LostArt]

To throw in my 2 cents to the debate, the mixing and mastering on this record was one of the things that impressed me the most. I think sonically, it sounds great. It has wonderful dynamics (switching from loud parts to quiet) and the full stops where the volume completely drops are done perfectly.

I actually am pretty impressed by this record's production.

We're talking about the same album ? That Lucky Old Sun, now known in my houshold as Everything Louder Than Everything Else ?

Well, there's got to be something funny going on here, because as I said earlier, both of mine sound great.  I played it on another system last night, just to see if there was any difference on smaller speakers.  It sounded fine.  The crescendo of the vocals on Midnight's Another Day comes through fine, there's no audible clipping on the louder parts, and it sounds punchy when it needs to.  Really.  Another funny thing is that most of the folks over on the Hoffman board, who are usually very critical of the loudness/compression wars, are saying that the CD sounds fine.  Weird, huh?