DR, Brickwalling, Fidelity, and Perceived Loudness

[par4ken]

I didn't have any stat but the one my ears gave me, but it really is a heinous sounding disc.

No wonder an average DR of 12 for the 1990 disc down to a 6 in the 2011 version! Totally ridiculous and completely uncalled for!!

 

[markshan]

No, actually it isn't. Reduction is a permanent, irreversible process, like reducing a file from 96kHz to 48kHz. Compression implies that whatever process you're doing has an equivalent expansion, like for example in the FLAC process, where you take a PCM .wav file, compress it to FLAC, and then decompress it back to wav. Similarly with standard file compression, it's the same: zipping a file is compression, unzipping it is decompression. A sample rate or bit depth downconversion isn't compression, because you're permanently changing the file in a way that can't be reconstructed - once you've turned a 96kHz file into a 48kHz file or a 24bit file to a 16bit file there's no way to reverse the process and recover the data that you've discarded.

This has been covered. See post #103.

 

[steelydave]

Yes but that's not the type of compression we have been talking about. We are talking about the compression of the amplitude peaks to make the recording sound louder. When the amplitude compression is done so heavily (i.e. brickwalling) nothing can be done to bring it back to life!

Noise reduction systems like DBX compressed the signal by a predetermined amount and the expanded it back on playback. Brickwalling compresses the audio so tight that there is no amplitude variation from peak to peak, and it sounds awful!

Yes, apologies - this thread has gone off on a number of tangents simultaneously, and I was replying to markshan's assertion that when talking about data, downsampling was a form of data compression when it is in fact a form data reduction. I probably should've just let it go because this thread seems to already be a chaos of people shouting about all sorts of different things, but like Albert Camus said, "to name things wrongly is to add to the misfortune of the world” and I felt like it's easier to have a productive discussion when we're all using the same (correct) terminology for things. Otherwise we could actually be arguing about something we actually agree on, simply because we're using two different words or descriptions for the same thing.

To bring this back to the actual topic at hand, I certainly agree that overuse of compression or brickwall limiting (which is one form of compression) in mastering are absolutely harmful to the sound quality of recorded music, but by the same token it's an essential part of music mixing, and there are certainly instances in mastering where a judicious use of compression can either help glue a slightly wonky mix together, or help a slightly limp-sounding one pop more. I think people who simply think more DR = better sound don't fully grasp the usage of compression as a tool, and that a recording with excessive DR can either sound lifeless (I have a few early '80s CDs including one from Kool & the Gang that's like DR16 but it's so floppy and lacking in bass that I never listen to it) or have you riding the volume control because the quiet parts are _too quiet_ and the loud parts are TOO LOUD, an experience of which I had with the original AM+ CD of Supertramp's Crime of the Century in the car. I love that super-dynamic range in my silent home listening environment, but when I had to crank up the keyboard intro of Bloody Well Right to hear it over the car engine, the full band nearly took my head off when it came in later because it's so much greater in volume.

 

[Pontoneer]

Every new record is dirty. Just look at what is left behind after doing a real cleaning.

Proper cleaning is the preventative. Everything you’re using is a therapeutic.

It’s great that you have convinced yourself cleaning isn’t necessary, but it’s terrible advice for others.

New records are as near sterile as can be .

That’s why they play with silent surfaces .

 

[markshan]

like Albert Camus said, "to name things wrongly is to add to the misfortune of the world”

That's true.

Lossless compression - Wikipedia

 

[markshan]

New records are as near sterile as can be .

That’s why they play with silent surfaces .

If every new record you buy plays with silent surfaces you have been quite fortunate.

I don't automatically clean every new record I get, but I do find that about 1 in 4 benefit.

 

[Pontoneer]

If every new record you buy plays with silent surfaces you have been quite fortunate.

I don't automatically clean every new record I get, but I do find that about 1 in 4 benefit.

Every new record I’ve bought in the last two or three years has been proper 180g heavy vinyl , spotlessly clean and silent playing . No exceptions

 

[marcb]

New records are as near sterile as can be .

That’s why they play with silent surfaces .

You keep throwing out beliefs as facts - which nothing to support it.

Again, there is ALWAYS gunk and dirt left behind after cleaning brand new records.

So records manufactured in dirty, dusty environments, packed by hand, shipped across the world in trucks, trains & planes, and stored in warehouses are near sterile, but the dust that settles on the record during 20 min of playback is where we should focus our attention? Right...got it.

 

[MidiMagic]

Every new record I’ve bought in the last two or three years has been proper 180g heavy vinyl , spotlessly clean and silent playing . No exceptions

How does one keep the air in the house that clean?

I had a super filter cleaning the air in the music room and still found dust on the records after playing them. And until 1993, the buildings I lived in had smokers in them.

Proper 180 g vinyl??? Most of those are not even made to proper RIAA standards.

- They are thicker than the standard (they have to be to be 180 g).
- The center holes are smaller than the 5/16-inch RIAA standard. Most measure 1/4 inch.

They don't even fit on the spindles of two of my turntables. I have had to ream the holes to play the records.

 

[Pontoneer]

You keep throwing out beliefs as facts - which nothing to support it.

Again, there is ALWAYS gunk and dirt left behind after cleaning brand new records.

So records manufactured in dirty, dusty environments, packed by hand, shipped across the world in trucks, trains & planes, and stored in warehouses are near sterile, but the dust that settles on the record during 20 min of playback is where we should focus our attention? Right...got it.

YOU are spouting beliefs as facts with nothing to support them .

Pressing plants , like IC plants , have to be clean environments: microscopic contamination would be disastrous .

Upon manufacture , discs are sealed in their sleeves , sealed until opened by the customer : they aren’t going to get contaminated in between .

You say there is ALWAYS dirt and gunk left behind after cleaning brand new records : if that is so , you haven’t cleaned them : you’ve contaminated them with whatever mess you applied to them .

Brand new records are always spotlessly clean , unless you are buying from some third world back street sweat shop plant .

I have NEVER found dirt in any new record ; they are always spotless and play free of unwanted noises .

 

[Pontoneer]

How does one keep the air in the house that clean?

I had a super filter cleaning the air in the music room and still found dust on the records after playing them. And until 1993, the buildings I lived in had smokers in them.

Proper 180 g vinyl??? Most of those are not even made to proper RIAA standards.

- They are thicker than the standard (they have to be to be 180 g).
- The center holes are smaller than the 5/16-inch RIAA standard. Most measure 1/4 inch.

They don't even fit on the spindles of two of my turntables. I have had to ream the holes to play the records.

I don’t filter my air , indeed I like windows open and fresh air circulating .

I play my records with just the squirrel hair brush of my Michell Sweep Arm tracking across as they play ; it usually picks up a few particles of dust as they play , with the turntable lid closed over them . After playing they are put back in their sleeves clean , ready for the next time .

Yes the records may be thicker ; perhaps the holes are slightly smaller , I haven’t measured , but all my records fit the spindle on my Gyrodec, as they did all my previous turntables , and having worked several years in the hifi trade I’ve had a great many turntables through my hands as well as home for extended evaluation . I can’t say that I ever had issues with records not fitting any particular turntables .

My pickup is set up for the newer records in my collection with the arm height set for the headshell to be level when playing , if there is any difference in VTA it will be minuscule , and any error here normally presents as changes in the stereo soundstage , perspectives of depth etc . My Rega RB700 pickup arm does allow for VTA adjustment while playing , but I only trouble to set up when I replace cartridges every two or three years ; all adjustments are locked off once set and don’t drift out . I listen to my music rather than fiddle with settings .

 

[jimfisheye]

How does one keep the air in the house that clean?

I had a super filter cleaning the air in the music room and still found dust on the records after playing them. And until 1993, the buildings I lived in had smokers in them.

Proper 180 g vinyl??? Most of those are not even made to proper RIAA standards.

- They are thicker than the standard (they have to be to be 180 g).
- The center holes are smaller than the 5/16-inch RIAA standard. Most measure 1/4 inch.

They don't even fit on the spindles of two of my turntables. I have had to ream the holes to play the records.

My experience lines up with yours @MidiMagic.
I have experienced a few pristine clean examples here and there. Most need cleaning. Artifact noise gets significantly louder than the music with a full range cartridge. I've generally been disappointed with a vinyl pressing about 85% of the time for one reason or another. The other 15% are an absolutely astonishing demonstration of mechanical engineering.

Yeah, if you have dampening issues with your turntable setup, 180g vinyl isn't going to fix it! The too small hole would just couple it right back again anyway. The altered vertical stylus angle from the record being out of spec thick can introduce problems too.

 

[marcb]

YOU are spouting beliefs as facts with nothing to support them .

Pressing plants , like IC plants , have to be clean environments: microscopic contamination would be disastrous .

Upon manufacture , discs are sealed in their sleeves , sealed until opened by the customer : they aren’t going to get contaminated in between .

You say there is ALWAYS dirt and gunk left behind after cleaning brand new records : if that is so , you haven’t cleaned them : you’ve contaminated them with whatever mess you applied to them .

Brand new records are always spotlessly clean , unless you are buying from some third world back street sweat shop plant .

I have NEVER found dirt in any new record ; they are always spotless and play free of unwanted noises .

If vinyl buyers view your claims about the spotlessly clean nature of all new records with the same lens as your claims about no cleaning being needed for new records, my work is done here...

 

[Pontoneer]

W

If vinyl buyers view your claims about the spotlessly clean nature of all new records with the same lens as your claims about no cleaning being needed for new records, my work is done here...

With new records costing upwards of £20 each , and some discs being over £50 buyers have a right to expect , and demand , perfection .

The market records are now sold into would not accept or tolerate anything less .

If I paid a lot of money for a new record and it was anything less than perfect , I wouldn’t be cleaning it , I’d be taking it back and demanding a replacement, just like I did back in the 1970s when pressing quality wasn’t what it is today .

 

[marcb]

W

With new records costing upwards of £20 each , and some discs being over £50 buyers have a right to expect , and demand , perfection .

The market records are now sold into would not accept or tolerate anything less .

If I paid a lot of money for a new record and it was anything less than perfect , I wouldn’t be cleaning it , I’d be taking it back and demanding a replacement, just like I did back in the 1970s when pressing quality wasn’t what it is today .

Outliers aside, inflation adjusted, the cost of records today generally isn’t much different from what it was historically.

Expecting a new record (now or ever, really) to be clean is like expecting new apples you buy at a grocery store to be clean. One can believe and rationalize they should be clean - and not clean them before eating them - but it’s at your own peril.

 

[Bill B]

My experience lines up with yours @MidiMagic.
I have experienced a few pristine clean examples here and there. Most need cleaning. Artifact noise gets significantly louder than the music with a full range cartridge. I've generally been disappointed with a vinyl pressing about 85% of the time for one reason or another. The other 15% are an absolutely astonishing demonstration of mechanical engineering.

Yeah, if you have dampening issues with your turntable setup, 180g vinyl isn't going to fix it! The too small hole would just couple it right back again anyway. The altered vertical stylus angle from the record being out of spec thick can introduce problems too.

As indicated above, I am not a vinyl person, what exactly is artifact noise?

 

[marcb]

As indicated above, I am not a vinyl person, what exactly is artifact noise?

I’m putting words in the poster’s mouth, but I took it to mean general surface noise. However, I suppose it could also mean non-fill/stitching, off-center pressing artifacts, warped or dished record artifacts, excessive ticks/pops, etc.

If you can’t put up with the challenges of vinyl playback, you don’t deserve the benefits...

 

[Bill B]

I’m putting words in the poster’s mouth, but I took it to mean general surface noise. However, I suppose it could also mean non-fill/stitching, off-center pressing artifacts, warped or dished record artifacts, excessive ticks/pops, etc.

If you can’t put up with the challenges of vinyl playback, you don’t deserve the benefits...

Thank you. Just happy to hear someone admit that there are challenges.
I can remember back in my vinyl days that there were some instances where I could hear the first few seconds of a song very faintly before the actual song started at proper volume. Usually the first song on a side.

 

[Stephen W Tayler]

Thank you. Just happy to hear someone admit that there are challenges.
I can remember back in my vinyl days that there were some instances where I could hear the first few seconds of a song very faintly before the actual song started at proper volume. Usually the first song on a side.

That is 'print-through' from the analogue tape that the LP was mastered from - not an issue from the vinyl itself.

 

[paligap]

I guess I never really noticed the differences in volume among records, CDs, or other discs before. I adjusted the volume knob according to my mood, not to compensate for outliers. I do recall, though, one CD I bought on Amazon, Neil Young & Crazy Horse's "Weld". I always have to turn the volume way up.