Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Dynamic samples, compressed samples (Read 20461 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

***EDIT*** OK these two samples are not good at all.
In order to jump right to the interesting uploads, go down to 2BDecided posts : http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....ndpost&p=205696
...and following ones.
***EDIT***


Here are two samples illustrating how dynamics compression may artistically damage a song. There are already several threads about the biggest replaygain alues. This one is different. The replaygain value of the track is "only" -7.23 db, but the negative effect on the song is maximal.

They are two different performances of the same song : Qntal - Ecce Gratum

Live.mpc is taken from the Video DVD "Qntal - Live". Technically, the recording is bad, because it was directly taken from the live performance.

Studio.mpc is the same part, but from the studio album Qntal III.

When I bought the CD, I found this song very boring. For me, the worst of the album by far. I really disliked it.
But watching the DVD, the exact same song was completely different ! In fact, I ended finding it not bad at all.

Technically, there are only 3 db more dynamics in the live version. That is not much, but it seems to me that the "loudness race" has terribly damaged the studio version. Every instrument tries to make as much noise as possible.

The live sample can be listened to several times in a row... the voice emphasizes every syllab of the text.
In the studio sample, it seems to me that the emphasis has been crunched. In fact the voice seems lost in a stack of noise. I find it very unpleasant to listen to.

What do you think of them ?

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #1 –
Second sample

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #2 –
with most music i find the bootlegs/live recordings to be more interesting anyways...

it isn't specific to a particular record (i.e. more like a general rule for me) so i'm curious ... is this your argument?


later

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #3 –
It would have been more interesting if the two performances were the same, because here, we can argue that the live sample is more listenable because the singer and performers did a better job.
It's difficult to tell what comes from the performers, and what comes from the mixing/mastering.

It seems to me that dynamics compression was applied to the studio voice, and that it sucked all life from it. The studio sample also reminds me of what a french humorist, Coluche, once said in a sketch :
"Not everyone can be soloist !"

So my argument is very different. I was concentrating on the mixing, trying to ignore differences between the performances.

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #4 –
The ambience / acoustics are also significantly different on the live recording.

Too many factors come into play when comparing studio vs live recordings, so I for one do not think that you can conclude anything about the impact of the loudness race from these samples.. just my $0.02
A riddle is a short sword attached to the next 2000 years.

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #5 –
perhaps not these samples in particular

i guess the best method for this would be to focus on material that has gone through a remaster, etc.

i.e.

Led Zeppelin Original CD Release vs Led Zeppelin Box Set Remaster Release, etc.

Pio,

i do understand some of your intentions but i guess doing live vs. studio isn't the best way to handle this situation


later

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #6 –
Maybe it would be easier to compare an old release vs. a new, remastered release?

Like Pink Floyd from the 1992 remasters (maybe Shine On, considered by many the best Pink Floyd remaster) - which are from before the loudness race started - vs. recent remasters.

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #7 –
I have a more general question concerning this:

I've heard -7db CD's that sound fairly decent (not often).  But I've also heard -2 db (or whatever) CD's that sound flat.  So the replaygain value is obviously not the only meaningful piece of information.  Is this where the peak value comes into play?  Is there some other piece of info that comes into play?  Is there a layman's way to explain this to me?  Am I asking a dumb question?
Santa is very jolly because he knows where all the bad girls live.  - Dennis Miller

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #8 –
Aerosmith - "Greatest Hits" vs. "O Yeah! Ultimate Aerosmith Hits"

"Greatest Hits" is horribly compressed, while "O Yeah! Ultimate Aerosmith Hits" seems to have much larger dynamics on the tracks - I don't know which album was released first. Listen to Sweet Emotion on both CDs, the difference is just too large to imagine.

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #9 –
I'm not into that kind of music in the slighest, however, i do agree with you that the live version is more enjoyable to listen to.

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #10 –
not sure if this is an example of the sonic difference, but it points out the stupidity of the loudness race:

i recently borrowed a friend's vinyl edition of Beastie Boys - Ill Communication, and compared replaygain values.  these cannot be completely accurate, as my cartridge, stylus and tonearm are all sub-optimal, however i took care in the recording (going so far as to record with 10% speed reduction and then re-EQ'ing and speeding up).

the song "sabotage"  had these values:

CD:    -7.14 dB
vinyl:  -2.38 dB

now, my recording was not a quiet one - peaks were pushing -0.5dB while i recorded it, and after re-equalising with foobar's convolver and advanced limiter, it tickled fullscale all through the song (i might want to do it again to avoid this, but it really doesn't bother me for now).

aesthetic effect is difficult to observe... there's the "warmer" vinyl sound (ie. more distortion, and exaggerated bass caused by record wear and RIAA EQ curve), which could account for maybe 1 or 1.5dB of the replaygain value, but generally the sound is far more effective with the more dynamic recording.  the beats kick you more when the volume goes up, the vocals aren't smothered by the bassline.

this strikes me as unbelievably stupid considering the noise floor of this LP (after meticulous cleaning, etc) was a high -41.9dB, where the noise floor of an undithered CD is -96dB.

why is it that the superior medium is being abused?

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #11 –
Quote
Maybe it would be easier to compare an old release vs. a new, remastered release?
Like Pink Floyd from the 1992 remasters (maybe Shine On, considered by many the best Pink Floyd remaster) - which are from before the loudness race started - vs. recent remasters.


I have a strong desire to do just this with several of my discs, but I only have a single version of each unfortunately. In particular, I would be most intrigued to compare some of my older "audiophile" Mobile Fidelity Ultradisc masterings to more modern mass market remasterings. If anyone is interested I'd be more than willing to upload 30 second segments of songs from any of these discs to compare with someone elses modern remaster.

I would be especially interested in comparing segments of Rush's Moving Pictures (2112 as well) or the Blind Faith album to the recent remastered versions since these are two of the oldest Ultradiscs I own, before the advent of their ominously named "GAIN system".

Kuuenbu (edit: not Dan!) mentioned the former album as a good example of properly done, modern remastering in the loudness thread...if anyone wants to compare "Tom Sawyer" or "Limelight" or "YYZ" or "Witch Hunt" (or Camera Eye, Barchetta, Vital Signs) samples I would be extremely gratified.

Quote
why is it that the superior medium is being abused

Do  I know what rhetorical means? 

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #12 –
As a preventitive measure in case I get bogged down with work, here are the first thirty seconds of "Tom Sawyer" from the MFSL Ultradisc II remastering of Moving Pictures in case someone wants to upload the companion segment from the new remaster. In this case we would be potentially comparing two different mastering techniques from different years on the same source material, which might be instructive.

  Track is not wavgained of course, peak level for the track was about 90% with 100%  extraction quality

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #13 –
I don't have two different versions of the same track from CD to upload.

But I have played around with using multi-band compression and hard limiting to make some of the best recordings I own sound like some of the worst!

This is the original...

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #14 –
...and this is my compressed version...

I used some manual multi-band compression in Cool Edit Pro (i.e. I filtered it and then compressed each band separately). I then EQed it to make it sound closer to the original, used 6dB of hard limiting, and then tried to match the level to that of the original. The result is that the compressed version peaks at -9.5dB, while the original peaks at -0.5dB.


ReplayGain thinks the compressed version should be 2dB louder than this to match the original, but I disagree! It could be 9.5dB louder before clipping than what I've uploaded here, and certainly would be on a commercial release. At 9.5dB louder, it would just blow away the much quieter original.

Even with the levels matched, the compressed version sounds "punchier" - however, the hard limiting is overdone, so it also sounds quite distorted.

What's most marked is that it doesn't sound like a real trumpet in a real acoustic anymore! It's just noise.


I'd invite anyone with cheap speakers (or better still, both cheap and expensive speakers) to compare these two, and say what they hear.


(btw, the first second of the original track isn't transparent with lame 3.90.3 aps or lame 3.96 ps - the trumpet sounds rougher - ABX 8/8 both versions - will upload a lossless version if anyone's interested.)

Cheers,
David.

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #15 –
Here is an extract from the passage Ego sum abbas in Carmina Burana by Carl Orff.
It was performed by the London Symphony Orchestra, conducted by Richard Hickox.
The CD is an all digital (DDD) production

file details:
FLAC compressed
27s
1.95MB
Ripped using CDex

The extract has a wide dynamic range and clear vocal which seems to stress codecs at lower bitrates.

Luke

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #16 –
Ok, my samples were pathetic. Now, since people seems interested in this, here are more dynamics examples.

First, the most dynamic CD in my collection.
Edvard Grieg - Peer Gynt - I Dovregubbens Hall (Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra and Chorus - Neeme Jarvi, 1987)

Here is the original
 

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #17 –
And here is a version that I compressed myself.
Please forgive the awful artifacts, I'm not good at all in compression.


This one illustrate how and why music is compressed. If you don't pay attention to the artifacts that my process introduced, the voices are much louder and clearer than in the original.

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #18 –
And now, the same as above, but leveled 15 db below, so that the voices are as loud as in the original.

Load this one first in your playlist, then the original, and play them one after another.

These two illustrate the lack of punch in compressed recordings.

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #19 –
Finally, in addition to the above sample, I'd like to show another example. I know that I'm uploading much data. I hope that it is OK. They are not lossless, so they don't take very much space.


These two are not from the same original, nor even from the same artist, but their musical genre is similar.

This is Kovenant - Mirrors Paradise.

It is overcompressed. I'd like to turn up the volume to enjoy it, but I can't ! It makes too much noise, and has no punch at all. I find it very frustrating.

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #20 –
And for the comparison, this is Artrosis - Gora Przeznaczenia.

The instruments used sound similar, but this one is much more dynamic. And I can turn up the volume louder than Kovenant. It has much punch, and is very enjoyable.

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #21 –
Thankies, these are exactly what I was looking for in my thread. Nice work, Pio ^^

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #22 –
Quote
I'd invite anyone with cheap speakers (or better still, both cheap and expensive speakers) to compare these two, and say what they hear.

I tried listening on both PC speakers (Altec Lansing ACS48; nice, but definately far from high end) and my headphones (Beyerdynamic DT880).

But I can't say the headphones were more "revealing". Or in other words, the speakers didn't mask the flaws in the compressed sample.

Things I noticed in the compressed version:

The attacks of the trumpet are killed.

Especially the piano has more reverb. This had an interesting effect on me. Think of an ADSR envelope of a single piano note. When I was listening to the "R" part, it was so loud, that my brain expected the "A" part to be much louder than that and my ears prepared for the loud attack, but the "A" part actually wasn't that much louder. This could explain listening fatigue. Your ears are allways on the edge, ready to face a loud part. For short periods of time the ear can dampen loud sounds. Probably for no particular reason, this mechanism is also activated when yawning.

It's hard to focus attention on an individual instrument - they are all right in your face, screaming: "ME! ME! ME!"

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #23 –
Quote
I tried listening on both PC speakers (Altec Lansing ACS48; nice, but definately far from high end) and my headphones (Beyerdynamic DT880).

But I can't say the headphones were more "revealing". Or in other words, the speakers didn't mask the flaws in the compressed sample.

Exactly - that's my theory - the equipment has to be complete junk for the compressed version to sound better (when level matched with the dynamic version).

You could say my attempt at compression was quite poor, but it sounds similar to many ILRs (independent local radio stations - i.e. commercial radio) in the UK.

Your idea about listener fatigue may have a lot of truth in it - I wonder how you could test it?

Cheers,
David.

Dynamic samples, compressed samples

Reply #24 –
here's an uncompressed (from CD) rock sample with relatively high dynamics

edit: matched the volume