A recent cd-release got publicity because it uses less dynamic compression than what has become usual.
Link to the New York Times article.

I thought dynamic compression to a certain level was a Red Book standard. If it's not, then why don't more artists release these so-called "dynamic CDs"?

Loud CDs are entirely a label and marketing thing. Though, it has become so "normal" that now artists sometimes try to imitate it preemptively. For more info, search the forum or the web for "loudness war".... there are massive amounts of info available.

They would have to justify demand. Such demand comes from small groups of listeners and HA. The other thing is in doing so they admit to their bad deeds. By ignoring it they can continue with their agenda - to create demand for loud CD's without even making people understand why they need them. To go the other way with mainstream listeners is kind of contradictory. The other thing is a lot of people still don't know or care about the issue - especially younger listeners.

Still since nothing was ever officially explained by the labels, One could theoreticaly change direction at least to cater for more demanding listeners etc. Then i see sacd DVDA as candidates for this new dynamic titles just to upsell the whole idea.

That album has a Replay Gain Album value of -6.84 dB. Not bad, but I've seen quieter values on CDs from the 80's.

Going too much into the opposite extreme, can be annoying as well though. I have some live tapings, which are so "dynamic" that i cannot listen to it at home, because either the quiet passages are barely hearable, or the crescendos are so loud that i'd need ear plugs.

True. Though -7 db is inline with the mid 90's loudness war and I would prefer mastering from then anyday to what is the norm today. It can be a good starting point. The question is how does it really sound ignoring the numbers and so forth.

I love the idea of record companies releasing limited edition vinyls with cd's from the same master. This is great news that I hope we here more of.

I'm listening to it right now. It sounds OK to me with my headphones, in a rather noisy environment. The soundstage is wide enough. Definitely not the best production I've heard though.

Right before that I was listening to Alanis Morissette's "So-Called Chaos", which is a total blur of noise (I can barely distinguish Alanis' voice and the guitar from the other instruments. Hit hats sound like they were added only to further obfuscate the music).

Edit: let's not forget about Beastie Boys' "The Mix-Up" from 2007. It has a RG Album value of -3.12 dB, and as it happens, I can't think of a better sounding album from this decade. It's the kind of album I sometimes listen to only because it sounds so good, beyond its musical qualities.

Notice how the NYT calls it 'abnormally quiet' . A - 7 db CD is abnormal ?. Why not blissfully quite ??. Need good headphones ? - hey what about those who don't ? We don't need vinyl reference - 80's cd's were fine. The he says: its not for everyone .. Why ?? What is wrong with -7 db ? Who complained in 1995 that CD's were not loud enough ?

I don't think this article is very good at giving the benefits to the average listener.

This RG value is probably from the "normal" CD and not from the "vinyl" CD. I'd love to see a RG value of the latter.

My reference copy of The Nighfly by Donald Fagen is around -12db - still sounds beautiful. What ever happened to just using the volume knob on your system?

Obviously - the guy who wrote this article has no clue about how things used to be back in the day - when CDs actually had some dynamic range.

You're right, my bad. In other words, the fans who want a CD that's mastered the way it was always meant to be mastered, will have to buy the CD all over again. I would poop on the stack of CDs at the record store just out of principle, if the security guards didn't look so scary.

Yikes. Definitely not the case.

CDs were originally touted as the medium that would allow us, at long last, to hear recordings at their *full* dynamic range. The music biz has come a long, stupid way since then.






The 'commercial' CD that's available is NOT the one they claim has more natural dynamic range..i.e, the one that was sourced from the 'LP master'. You only get that one if you buy the LP.


Speaking of which, it's borderline surreal that we're now getting hype about a CD sounding great because it was sourced...from an LP master. In the early 80s
many CDs were rushed into print using such sources by record companies that didn't give a crap about original master tapes...
which led to complaints and then a wave of remasters in the late 80s and early 90s, from original master tapes. In retrospect, the late 80s/early 90s
will probably be the high water mark of popular music CD audio quality, because the loudness wars started kicking in after that.




-12dB? Surely that's not the replaygain value?





Actually, if the 'special' CD was sourced from an LP master, then fans who want the best CD version would have to wait for them to create one that was sourced from the full-range master, without added compression during the CD mastering. Usually an 'LP master' is one that has been EQ'd particualrly for vinyl production, taking into account that medium's limitations (e.g. end-of-side level/eq restrictions). THese are unnecessary for a CD release.

Yeah. If I read the NYT article correctly, the "normal" CD is using the LP master but with additional production to make the drums and vocals a little louder. That could certainly explain the ~ -7 dB replaygain value.

I would expect the "vinyl" CD that comes with the limited edition LP to contain a much more audiophile-friendly replaygain value, say -1 or -2.

I think what the article means is that the 'LP mastered' CD is the one where drums and vocals stand out. On a 'regular' CD, with smashed dynamic range, everything sounds as loud as everything else, and *that* would explain the -7 dB rpg value.

Just wondering, what is the reference loudness that your implementations of ReplayGain are adjusting for, the "suitable" 83db mentioned in the proposition? Industry standard 82db? Or something else?

It's important to mention that I would think.

IIRC 83dB was originally specified, because that is the standard in the film industry. ReplayGain developers later settled on 89dB for audio applications, and that is the default in foobar2000.

- M.

I read the article the other day, i'll wait

Probably not. My very old copy of The Nightfly has a RG value of +1.27 (that's PLUS) and yet the peaks are all above 0.5.

Very nice...