Much of today's music is so sonically compressed, that is barely has any dynamics at all. In this video, let's explore how vinyl could put a damper on that.
Dynamic compression is not the same thing as recorded level. Dynamic compression is a form of distortion applied to the waveform to make it sound louder by boosting quieter waveforms more than loud ones. It cannot be undone by turning the volume down.
bryede That's right! The overuse of compression is making everything equally loud, and it can't be turned down. Keep it quiet, and we'll turn it up at home.
Craig explains things here pretty well, but all I know (presonally) is that vinyl, when played back on a decent system (turntable & needle, receiver, speakers) just sounds SO much better, even to my older ears. I'd be a fan of vinyl even if I were only 18 again.
Great video. The whole reason why I started my youtube channel. I couldn't tolerate the compressed mastering, so now I have a workflow to uncompress, enhance & remaster the compressed version. I can get close to the original dynamics with respectable loudness without brickwalling.
I would just like to say that with everything going on in the world your videos and your voice bring me extreme calm and comfort. I suffer from anxiety and with everything going on at this time I can watch your videos and forget what is going on for a bit and feel comforted to listen to something other than media sensationalism. Thank you Craig.
Fantastic analogy my good friend ..an education of sorts which helped me appreciate the differ3nces with cd and vinyl. I do now have better understanding on a topic that can be confusing. This is your old pal who sent you the Carlsberg glasses from Ireland. Loving it my friend.
24 bit or DSD rips from Vinyl , played from my phone from its USB output throgh a stand alone DAC , sound as warm and dynamic as the Vinyl with no digital harshness or brightness, love it....yes i agree with u Sir.
The Beatles Sgt. Pepper's remix from last year is another good example of the vinyl version being quieter and punchier than the digital. I watched a few album review videos here on TH-cam when it was released and the poster would talk about how loud the CD/digital was and there would be comments below saying "try listening to the vinyl, it's much better on your ears." I tried it an they were right on.
@@nathanjones4039 THANK YOU for this! I just posted a comment asking about some of the newer remasters. Not a huge Beatles fan but I have seen this album and was tempted. I will buy it next time I see it.
I don't have the remix but I do have a 1970s stereo press and 2 original monos which all sound great and the remix that's on Spotify while some parts sound clearer, it also sounds like it's been slightly brickwalled (especially being for the benefit of Mr kite), so do you think the vinyl release of the remix would solve that issue? I was sort of put off buying it due to the brickwalling but if it's just the digital release I might buy my 4th (and hopefully last) copy of Sgt. Pepper
Hey Craig, I have been having issues with Johnny Come Lately vinyl sellers on DISCOGS!! Had really good experience for 3 years, but the talent pool (aka responsible sellers) is thinning. Thanks for the videos, good stuff! 👍
Thanks for sharing these interesting thoughts, I agree with you. I would add another good reason why vinyl could save music: the music business is not doing so well as they use to, streaming is the only income they have. It is true that they will never make as much money as they did in the past, but they can make some money if they give vinyl another chance. Nowadays we dont wont to pay a cent for a CD but we dont mind paying 20 € for a vynil record (if it is a good one). They should recognize that a good band making good albums still a good product today. All they have to do, as you said in your video, is to make good quality mastering for vinyl like they use to do, and sale it to people who cares about dynamics, also to audiophiles, collectors, fans, birthday gifts, etc, and keep doing the compressed digital trash for the rest of clients. So the music industry should be happy that they still have the chance of using this old income source. Now the question is: will they take the chance? or will they just let it pass and keep criying?
Love you explanations!!! The music industry started the "Loudness Wars" a long time ago IMO. After many years they have now gotten a lot more sophisticated. It's definitely more of a Sound War.
Thanks for this fantastic video Craig. There are CD's that sound good., most released in the 80's sound good. Some companies today also makes good CD releases. SACD's sound fantastic. I love vinyl, but i also love cassette's and CD's.
Well said sir. So much music these days comes across as a muddy indistinct wall of sound, some of the music is perfectly decent, but the compression has squashed the life out of it. Radio stations have also been using compression for a long time, though some of that may have been to compete with background noise in cars or wherever people may be listening.
@@VeryUsMumblings I am not so sure of that. I know that it is early, but based on what was brought to my attention I think HD vinyl has positive potential.
Vinyl never really got to see noise reduction. There are some DBX records out there, and if you have a decoder, they sound very quiet and amazing. Add to that a pop and click remover and you have vinyl sound without the noise. Put a switch on the turntable and it can play both standard and DBX. Did no one think of this yet?
@@bikdav Analog Planet, Michael Fremer's channel did an interview with the guys who are promoting HD Vinyl. It's mostly about creating a stamper from a digital file, then bypassing the nickel-plating stage in the process to press more records from the same stamper. It saves money for the record company, and a few chemicals, but 'HD' is just advertising.
You are 100% right. Thank you for your videos and you do such a great job. I was in to wax back in the 60’s 70’s and just got back in to it because of you. I just bought a RT 85 Fluance do to what you said about your Fluance Thank you.
Loudness wars make it impossible to turn up the volume on your amp, in a normal way! Some, mostly, cd's are so loud, you can turn on your amp to 1 and it is too loud already! Horrible invention!
Very informative. I too bought Clockwork Angels in digital format, then I saw them play it live. I may have to break down & buy the vinyl. I did get the hologram 2112 though!
I agree, Darlene Goodwin. Thumbs up. I have a slightly larger vinyl record collection, and prefer music on this medium because most of the records from the late sixties, 1970s, to the end of the 1980s are recorded very well on vinyl; at least 90% of them, anyway.
It is possible to have too much of a good thing. Just because a CD has 90 dB of dynamic headroom, doesn't mean it is a good thing necessarily. How many times have you had to turn up the volume on a CD in order to hear the soft passages, only to have the thing blast your eardrums into bloody puddles when the really loud passages begin? That is what over 90 dB of dynamic headroom means, and it aint fun... Many CD players have a 'loudness' button that leaves the loud passages alone, while artificially amping up the soft passages to avoid just this scenario. More dB doesn't mean more better... Craig, you hit one of the nails on the head when you said laying wider tracks on a vinyl would mean less time per side, but another reason is that being a physical medium, when the stylus goes from a very soft sound to trying to reproduce a very loud passage, it is the equivalent of your car running over a speed bump at high speed - the needle can literally pop right out of the groove. That isn't a good thing :) Sometimes even 40 dB of dynamic range is too much. What I like about Vinyl is that it forces greedy record executives to obey physical law, no matter how short sighted they may be. Peace.
Hey Craig, good to see you posting again. Fortunately many music from the 90s and back can still be found in its pre-loudness wars era mastering. Too bad the “Turn Me Up” (turnmeup.org) initiative never got any traction...
I think youre missing an aspect in the video here. The loudness wars, despite the name, doesnt necessarily have to do with making things loud, just compressed. And if you think about it like that, then you realize it its doable on vinyl too. Because whats loud is only what you compare it to. You might not have the same output level as a CD, but you can still compress the music, just quieter. You will have to crank the amp more, but its still as compressed as the CD. As you mentioned its all about the mastering though. The only issue is how few good mastering engineers we have left in the industry, and most of them are getting up in age. Scary thought.
@@VinylTV33 Given how some very nicely mastered records can have more surface noise than poorly mastered ones I dont think its a factor taken into consideration beyond a certain point. The mastering engineer will most of the time assume good vinyl is used, because its not really a problem on most music. Yeah you might have some noise between tracks, but while music is playing you have to go pretty darn quiet to simultaneously hear surface noise over a tune. I cant really think of many records beyond a few Pic Discs and un serious pressings that have a distracting surface noise floor. The real problem is crackles and pops, which cant really be accounted for at all until the record is produced and played. I wish I had some math on this, but Id think that you can do some pretty compressed and quiet music on a record while still maintaining a 20 minute or so runtime per side and not having surface noise being a problem.
Dynamically compressed music actually makes surface noise less noticeable because of its relentless dominance over it. You generally hear noise in the quiet parts.
@@bryede Thats a point too, if its compressed, nothing will be super quiet either, so it would override the surface noise better than a very dynamic cut, even if its compressed quieter than the CD.
the term "loudness war" refers to the percieved loudness - not the signal amplitude - dynamic range compression (among other things) will make you THINK something sounds louder. even tho the compressed and uncompressed signal would peak at the same amplitude. (like the 0db hard cap of digital audio for example - you can't have +3 db peaks on digital)
Another great video, Craig! Thank you for getting back to me, and communicating, and explaining about the different formats on the topic of "Best Audio Format". I was surprised, and delighted that you responded, and explained further. Getting back to this topic, I mostly have vinyl records from the late sixties, mostly from the 1970s, to the end of the 1980s. Up to 90%, at least, are recorded very well, from my opinion, and I mostly prefer that music since I grew up in the 1970s to the 1980s. I realize that there were plenty of one hit wonders during the nineteen eighties, but more than a couple of hits are wonderful; to me. In my opinion there was some good rock and roll, as well as pop up to the early 1990s.I understand not everything was very good music, and possibly recorded well, but up to the late 1980s I was a very young man, so I tend to like, and prefer that time of music. By the way, on other TH-cam videos I also write vinyl is final. Again, thanks for reading my opinions in the previous post.
I had an interesting experience recently. I bought a fresh copy of Revolver. I had an original copy but it had a bit too many pops and ticks. Plastered on the front was a big sticker that said that the album had been "remastered". Two things I noticed immediately - they had added a new track on each side that was not on the original. The second thing? A lot of the bass was gone. I did a side by side and the "remastered" version sounded tinny and thin in comparison to the original.
I think the reason for the different editing/mastering may also be the environment in which the listening happens. Perhaps the digital version is intended to be more portable and listened to in places with more background noise. For example a radio edit needs to be heard above the tragic and car noise for people travelling in their cars. Whereas people listen to vinyl in their homes and it is a medium that demands your attention.
As others said ... if the listener wants the sound louder that is the purpose of a system's volume control ... compressor/ compression as I understand it's called flat lines the highest peaks in the music so the lower sounds are louder than the original sounds ... that flat lining cause the drum and or trebles to be cut off ... examine it in audacity (zoomed in on the wave at the peak point ... you will absolutely see how it is flattened out which indeed changes how it originally was ... image a rubber band plucked in the open air ... now imagine it between two cardboard pieces so it hits them as if swings in the motion ... compression camaflouges it better but you get the idea ... it's like a controlled distortion... I'm sure most people still have copies of early released CDs when they actually reserved the recorded signal... those sound POSITIVELY awesome no compression at all... (then they learned how to muck it up) today's CDs sound distorted terribly bad IMHO hopefully the company's will learn "hey stereos do have a volume control" (we can hope anyway) LOL
I'm glad you singled out the effect of over-compression on drum hits. Every drummer should be crying out against this. For several years now I've only been buying new music on vinyl because of this very issue. From my experience, CDs mostly sound fantastic right up until around 1998-2000 or so. If the year starts with a "2" then I can assume it's over-compressed. Also infuriating are "remastered" CD releases of older recordings with the compression cranked up. When I see remastered on the label, I mentally translate that as "Special Ebola Edition!" Stay away! Unfortunately, there's a time period from about 2000 through about 2008 or 2010 or so when CDs were hyper-compressed but vinyl was still in limbo, and a lot of that music is just not available in any form that isn't sonically crushed. To give you a particularly example: ZZ Top's Mescalero. I wish so much for a version of this with decent sound quality. If you want a recent recording that sounds fantastic, I'd point you toward the vinyl release of Styx's The Mission. If you ever liked Styx at all, to me this ranks right up with their best.
This is being said alot and I did note that in CD format infancy all CD's where from Japan, Germany, as US companies weren't ready to get into the act. After the US versions came out it went downhill IMHO.
@@sgoode1952Hmm, that's an interesting observation, but I would be wary of drawing any direct cause-and-effect between the two. As far as I know, digital mastering for CDs isn't done at the pressing plant. It can be done anywhere, and the plant just runs whatever data files they were sent. Also, I'm pretty sure those US pressing plants were up and running in the late 1980s, so that was a full decade before the over-compression trend became widespread.
I was reading an article somewhere and it said "To work with cheap earbuds many engineers simply copy an album and make it louder" i got a kick out of that. Buy decent earphones.
You are so right on everything you said. And what you were saying about recording a vinyl record on CD is absolutely right. I've done it many times, and the CD sounds exactly the same as the vinyl record.
I am an avid vinyl collector and I have never said to anyone vinyl records sound better than CD's. Theoretically, CD's should sound better than vinyl. BUT, vinyl records DO sound DIFFERENT than CD's. I just prefer the sound I hear on vinyl over that of a CD or any other digital medium.
Hi, Graig! Cheers from Brazil. I was rewatching some of your videos and I've noticed that the video where you did a comparission between an AC/DC reissue to an original pressing is not available anymore. Or am I wrong? I was going to show it to a friend but couldn't find it. Anyway, thanx for the great videos. Couldn't agree more about the fact that the diference between vinyl and CDs looooots of times are in the mastering. I've have some early 90s CDs that sound great.
It seems that video has been disabled due to copyright. How else are we supposed to talk about vinyl if we can't play comparisons between cartridges and pressings??
@@VinylTV33 Exactly! How??? The weird thing is that I've watched some videos of pressing comparisons using Floyd and Zep on the BarakaPDub channel and both video are still available on his channel. Maybe is the fact that you have more subscribers and your AC/DC video received more views. Maybe is the fact that BarakaDPub comparisons were done just using 15 seconds of each song. But this copyright thing is a dead end anyways. Since you compared 2 LPs (original and reissue) you had to do use the whole song (btw, you choose the best song on that album: "Shoot to Thrill" has the exactly right dynamics to compare loud and smooth passages). In his case, he compared 4/5 pressings. So, a whole song it would make it difficult to analyze the details on each pressing. Thanx for the answer, Craig.
Excellent video. I really enjoy watching your channel its nice to see someone talking to the average man, woman who may not have or doesn't want to spend 10 grand on an amplifier etc.
The only "loudness war" I am generally aware of is inside the average movie theater watching the latest blockbuster movie. And well ... I can't say I appreciate it, quite seriously. As for just basic recordings of music, one of the very best examples I have is a CD of Stravinsky's Firebird Suite, an oldish Telarc recording. THAT recording has a very serious dynamic range. Vinyl? No way - And besides - who loves pre and post groove echo, clicks and pops, potential for scratches, no possibility of listening to Beethoven's 9 symphony in one sitting without flipping the vinyl over to side B, and etc. into infinity. Generally speaking . . . the thing which makes the greatest difference in the potential for high quality recordings is the recording venue - the actual space used - the microphone placement, and the proper choice of microphones, the brand, etc. Compression? Maybe that's occasionally necessary for vinyl, but NOT for digital. Which element do we often ignore? The choice of speakers. There is actually a difference between good speakers, much better speakers, and the very best speakers in existence. I own a sample of each kind - a nice old pair of Yamaha 2-way box speakers with a 10 inch woofer and a dome tweeter. Dome? I thinks so; An original set of Boston Acoustic tower speakers which are no longer made; and finally, one of the very best sets of old Infinity speakers. Model? I can't remember. But I think Infinity made only one set of speakers which was better than my pair. Since we're returning to vinyl ... Let's also go back to cars with 2 cycle engines, to cameras which take 110 film, and to cathode ray tube televisions. My only joy in returning to something OLD is a cheap old Kodak camera which uses a film size which I'm not sure is still available, a film which would be LARGER in size than the equivalent of today's medium format film cameras, if they still exist? You know, like an old Hasselblad 2 and 1/4 inch film camera. I've seen one recently made 11x14 inch print from that old Kodak camera, a more or less ancient family photo. And generally speaking, despite that cheap one or two element lens, the print quality is MUCH better than expected. The family was sitting in a horse drawn carriage. My grandmother was holding a baby, my dad who is now 82 years old. Begging your pardon for the family history story.
I love your graphical display comparing a vinyl vs cd recordings. It really clarified it to my brain! I sure wish you were still making videos. Stupid TH-cam!!
I appreciate it that you don't damned CD's and Digital generally than other Vinyl Enthuasiasts do.Digital recorded Musik can sound fantastic if the Mastering is done properly.Same for Vinyl.I love both Mediums.Some of for me important Albums i buy the CD also as a Vinyl Copy.I love it to compare them in Sound.Sometimes the Vinyl Copy sounds (for me) better,sometimes the CD.You have really a great Channel and your Videos are Fun to watch,thanx
Wow, I sure thank you for this video. I learned a LOT. Your graphic using Audacious(?) made it 100% clear what is going on. Yes, I like my music loud, but I like the dynamics. There is such a thing as too loud, when you lose all the highs and lows. I am slowly learning this...At 50 years old I am finally opening up to classical and jazz and swing and other genres. Turn the volume down a bit and experience the emotion. Yes sir, Craig, you have connected a few dots for me with this one. I hope they start mastering albums in a sane way again. Hey, I am just getting back into vinyl. You have already done your favorites, but how about more on some of the better remastered albums? I heard Back in Black sucks. How are the Zeppelin albums? Zep II? Beatles? What are some of the better new vinyl releases?
I have the AC/DC re-issue and an original pressing. There's a video on my channel comparing the two. They are definitely different. I do have a few of the Zeppelin ones. I think they sound awesome, but have not A/B'd them with the originals I have. Supertramp Breakfast in America sounds awesome on the re-issue, but Crime of the Century is distorted on both re-issues I have, compared to the CD (the CD is much better on that one). Seems like they added overdrive/clipping on purpose.
Hi Craig nice video again. You are bang on about loudness. I love both vinyl and cd up to a point and that point would have been about 1991. Cds before 1991 sound really good. Go find a copy of Dire Straits Brothers in Arms or Tears for Fears Songs from the Big Chair on cd from 1985 and compare it to the vinyl hardly any difference. Then in 1991/92 cd sales took over records went out of fashion and shortly after that loudness bs started. It was gradual but I find that's when it really started.
CDs are mixed-down. Since 2000 or so, most recording studios record at a higher sampling rate, (24/96kHz or higher) while the CD standard hasn't changed. Essentially, the CD is compressed from a higher resolution digital file to a lower one. This is done because most home equipment playback is still at the CD 16bit/44.1khz standard. The compression can be done well or done badly, the bad version caused the 'brick wall' effect that you mentioned, but all compression causes a loss in quality. The vinyl version is likely a straight, uncompressed version (essentially a higher resolution digital recording) because there is no need to mix-down for the playback device that you're using, which could be a brand new turntable or one that's thirty years old (like mine).
Thanks for your comment. Keep in mind that down-sampling from 24/96 to 16/44 is not compressing, and it shouldn't cause audio compression. It's more of a conversion and if done as a strait down-sample, it shouldn't affect the audio other than it's less resolution. So unless they compress the audio as well as down-sampling it, there should be virtually no difference. The reason studios work with such high resolution is because the data gets tossed about through different plugins and bounced around. 16/44 recordings can degrade noticeably when put through that, while 24/96 recordings can hold up much better in the box while all that is going on. They down-sample the final mix for distribution, and 16/44 is more than enough resolution for human ears.
You are confusing sample rate conversion and data compression with dynamic range compression. Recordings are made louder with dynamic range compressors and limiters, and these have been used and abused for over 50 years. They can be analog units, or digital. You can have a high res signal running at 24/96k, and still squash the dynamic life out of it. Engineers do it all the time. Sometimes to great creative effect, but often it's overused to make mixes that are TOO LOUD and compressed. I mix music and I know this. I am under pressure not only by record companies, but by the ARTISTS themselves to make mixes that are as loud and compressed as other records. I try to educate them, but sometimes they just want what they want.
You're talking absolute nonsense. Going from 24/96 to 16/44 has nothing to do with dynamic range or loudness war. Over 16/44 is beyond human hearing. There are reasons to record in 24/96 due to noise floor etc. Incidentally, the LUFS standards brought in by Spotify etc are what is fighting the loudness of modern records more so than vinyl. It is supremely ironic though that the vinyl technical limitations actually result in better dynamics. Pre 1996 CDs can sound awesome. The problem is that they put the shitty mix on CD with DR6 and the dynamic DR11 mix on the record. Notable recent exceptions are Chinese Democracy and Random Access Memories.
@@JonnyInfinite Your opinion is your own as to what's good or not, but there are no sampling rates above human hearing. Sampling rates and audio frequencies are measuring two different things. And yes, CDs are compressed, it's just a different kind of compression. It doesn't matter to me if people prefer CDs. I just want the makers to be upfront about it and tell people what they're getting. btw: Random Access Memories was a mix of analog and digital masters. They released it on vinyl specifically because Daft Punk made an Analog master intending to release on Vinyl from the get-go. It is not irony (not completely, anyway) that the vinyl sound has better dynamics. Daft Punk intended this and listened to both digital and analog recordings before deciding whether or not to use digital effects like Pro Tools. Some tracks, like Omar Hakim's drums on certain songs, went straight from Ampex tapes to analog tape masters to vinyl. As far as LUFS standard, I don't know about that. I tend to avoid Spotify. I try to avoid itunes as well. In fact, I've heard many people make their own mp3s at home from their own CDs because they don't like what the stream-companies are doing. Anyway, thanks for the comment :)
4:00 Actually they can and did compress sound on some vinyl records. This was common on many of the "greatest hits from various artists" records. One in particular is Donna Summer's track called "I Feel Love". The dynamic range was crushed in the track in the hits album that has 20 tracks per side.
cool point of view. have you seen they released new versions of the fluance tables, so our RT81 has been discontinued. The newer versions higher than the RT80 also no longer have the PHONO stage included in the chassis. Happy listening.
I noticed back in 1984 or 1985 when the cd was coming up the vinyl records where getting louder even sometimes till distortion. I hated that. But they did that to compete with cds. Lukely now a days they use better equipment and better mastering. I'm in vinyl my hole live.
Does anyone in the community know if modern tracks are generally remastered for vinyl? It seems easier and cheaper to cut straight from the digital master. Maybe I'm jaded but it seems more likely modern methods would often just cut that corner and not remaster
The qualitative superiority of vinyl is very obvious when you hear a comparison with the compressed version. However, engineers of a certain age tell me that in the 70s other technical tricks and fixes were used to bring out the sound quality. I am not sure that I would give digital sound such a free pass (vs analogue sound), but that is another matter and can depend on exactly when the recording was made. I hope that the industry sees the potential in the vinyl opportunity. They can sell our old record collections to us a third time.
This is what I have been trying to tell people too! It is the mastering not the medium. I have Rush Moving Pictures on regular CD, on Mobile Fidelity Sound labs Gold UDCD, and on vinyl record. The record sounds better than even the gold CD. I recorded the record on to a burned cd using good digital software, equipment, turntable, and cartridge. Now the burned CD or file copy is the best copy. 44.1 24 bit rip and edit to 44.1 16bit final file.
Awesome! Good on the 24 to 16 bit down sampling. With those bit depths only affecting noise level, not overall quality, vinyl is equivalent to 8 bit, or 12 on a really good day. Never any need for 24 bit in the final file. I usually rip at 24 bit so I don't have to worry about levels as much, then down sample like you do, once I get it all cozy and normalized.
Great, I could not put it better. There is a database over albums. That people have measured how much dynamic range the album has. And if loudness is used then it will be lower. You can download the software and measure your self. And upload the result to the DB. dr.loudness-war.info You can then decide if you want to buy the album on certain format. The same goes for for example this album (44/24 HD): dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/118099 And the (Vinyl) of the same album: dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/133463 And super duper high resolution digital format do not equal to better sound reproduction/quality automatically.. that the above is a example of. :)
3:30 I think this confuses the issue a bit. Dynamic compression can either be a mixing/production or a mastering decision and many records have been made from highly compressed source material. The solution to running time is either to drop the whole side by a couple dB (which doesn't affect compression, just playback level) or to switch to a double album. I think the main reason records frequently have less dynamic compression has to do with the expectations of the target audience. For people who think loudness/dynamic compression is about turning your volume up or down, look at 13:37. Your volume knob stretches the waveform up and down away from the center line, but it cannot make the bottom waveform look like the top one at any setting. The waveform has been permanently distorted by compression.
I enjoyed listening to your video and have just subscribed......BUT Audio Compression has always existed since music recording began. There are two reasons for it: 1 - Compression executed to fit the limitations of the recording medium or playback medium, and/or 2- Compression done to make the recording more attractive/satisfying to the targeted listener and their environment. Recordings using consumer analog formats must ALWAYS be compressed because of limitations of the format. The 1st phonographs had terrible S/N & dynamic range...so the artists had to scream into the microphone so that they could be understood over the noise. As phono recording improved, dynamic range could be expanded...but certain types of music, like classical orchestral music, still had to be compressed a great deal in the masters so they would work on vinyl. Pop music has been compressed from the start because most mastering was done for AM Radio and to be listened to in cars where backgound noise was high. Radio is where listeners in the 50s/60s originally heard most Pop cuts. The vinyl versions were compressed too so that they would sound like the radio...or sound great on a dance floor...this is reason 2. You seem to be saying that today, when mastering vinyl the producers have made a conscious decision that vinyl listeners are more sophisticated than digital listeners and prefer wider dynamics. The problem is first...problem 1 still exists. It may be that on a given Rush album the mastering producer decided to increase dynamic range for vinyl...but on ALL orchestral classical music...and on music of any genre that already has wide dynamic range, the vinyl version must be more compressed to fit the format. I also expect, that if indeed Rush expanded dynamic range for vinyl (judging that is what vinyl audiences want) then they would do the same thing Or MORE for the Hi-Res Audio release....whose listeners are at least as sophisticated as vinyl listeners...and where the limitations of the format (reason 1 above) are never an issue.
I'm not quite sure most record companies are really on board for adding back the dynamic range in the mastering process for vinyl. I think what some record companies are doing for music that is released on digital and vinyl is cheating by limiting the frequency response (to reduce the possibility of sibilance) and reducing the stereo soundstage (to prevent loud distortion) for the vinyl in order to compensate for the lack of dynamic range in the digital master used for both formats.
I can't even listen to the local classic rock station on FM anymore. They compress the crap out of the old music, and it sounds me a headache. In the old days you could tape your favorite songs off of FM and have a listenable tape. OK on a cheap car stereo, but not at home or even on a good car stereo in a quiet car.
Thank you! With all do respect, I beg to differ on the 320kbps mp3 being low quality, and I will do a sure-fire test in an upcoming video that will prove the quality of 320kbps mp3. Cheers!
I think you might be making the assumption that CDs and digital files will be mastered the same way as records. I have a feeling that might not be the case _unless_ customers demand it. Records have to be mastered differently to other formats because if you over compress a record, the stylus starts jumping out the groove, so records just could not be as "loud" as tapes or CDs. I do think that record labels should take things like volume normalisation (iTunNorm and ReplayGain) into account. You brickwall everything on a digital file and the music app on the device you're listening to has ReplayGain or iTunNorm, that brickwalled track suddenly goes very quiet. A track with less compression suddenly pops as the normalisation doesn't drop the volume as much. The dynamic range in orchestral performances is probably why classical radio stations stream at a higher bitrate over the internet. I do know that BBC Radio 3 don't use dynamic compression on their transmissions whereas other BBC stations do (and stream at higher bitrates than other stations do) Torrents of vinyl rips vs legally bought digital copies - once again record labels break the First Law Of Anti-Piracy, don't give pirates a better experience than paying customers. I think a better saviour of our music is still going to be volume normalisation included in default music apps on devices (and included by default in digital files sold by the major stores) iTunes insist of volume normalisation, I think Amazon and Google Music should do the same.
I have Doors Sacd and the same Doors cd reg. They sound just a like each other. My gear is Marantz Sa 8006 player and a oppo 83 se player which both players play Sacd but with this Doors Sacd and Reg. Cd you can hear no difference. So you are right it is how they Engineer the Music that makes the difference on how the music Sounds.
I'm a big music fan and aware of increased loudness of modern releases, but I found reasoning behind this as "we will it louder to be louder then others" kinda dumb. I have idea that wide dynamic range is good in "greenhouse conditions", when you have a perfect audio setup, a perfect source of sound, a perfect quiet place and a perfect hearing. Otherwise when you have cheap earbuds and you listening music in the train, or while you on the street, or if you have not good hearing and you not able to hear the quietest moments or instruments of song, smaller DR will be better. Sorry for my bad English. I hope my point is understandable
When i digitize some vinyl I get really annoyed with the over-brickwalling and normalization of modern music. Digitized vinyl with just my simple battery-operated SD recorder just sounds great compared to purchased iTunes / Amazon files. All because of the over-driving levels of digital sources.EDIT: Thanks for the waveform comparison. Basically with all the spikes and transients evened out, the effect is the music / audio version of ALL CAPS in typing. Now I wish the 'high end' file download companies stop fooling around with 24 bit nonsense and just release less-normalized versions.
High quality MP3 is an oxymoron... I am awaiting a fresh 180g Zep IV to compare to the 24/96 FLAC version. Bought a serious turntable after 25 years of digital audiophilia. Then immediately had to buy a record cleaning machine as all my old vinyl is filthy and pretty much unplayable...all part of the fun...
Now, a vinyl will not always sound good, since it also depends on the source of the master, whether it is digital or analogue. If the source is good, the sound will be good. Mastering also has a lot of influence, but the main thing is the source. In the case of CDs, from what I understand, the first CDs were flat copies of the master with some eq adjustments.
I think vinyl sounds better to my ears because LP's can capture ALL the audio information! CD'S only capture 15%, given it reproduces that 15% better than LP's can! It's just the sampling rate is not high enough! Information makes a HUGE difference! I'd rather have more information and a little less dynamics, than to have near perfect reproduction of the frequency , and 85% less information! Actually putting CD to vinyl makes the music sound more 3 dimensional (to my ears, your experience my vary) ! Thank you Craig, nice job!
There are over 300 comments here so I apologize if this is already mentioned. I purchased Black Sabbath 13 album and it has two records. So for all the reasons you mentioned maybe that's the reason there are two in not one.
The sound of these compressed stations was S- - t. The station owners thought AM Radio sounded so bad that excessive loudness did not make a difference. Sadly previous to this heavy processing AM Stations sounded pretty good if you listened to them on a wide bandwidth receiver.
The question is why do they master things so loud? I guess it makes sense in the context it is being listened to - ie. in cars, on portable devices etc where there is a lot of background noise to compete with.Not good for listening to at home on a good hi fi set up though.
Vinyl doesn't have a fixed number of bits or samples. It's like film. It has limitations but they're not based on a fixed resolution. So the answer is NO.
Heard that. When I first put that disc on, went into the other room, I came running back in to turn it down before I got a complaint from the neighbors!
This is why modern album records are now double LPs...cause theyre loud and bassy. I have a Taylor Swift album that has 2 SONG'S each 4 minutes on side A. One of the most distorted albums I have
@@VinylTV33 Whatever the future holds for vinyl... I'll probably continue to add to my collection as much as possible because I'm one who likes it for several reasons personally.
Such a good analogy. Just make it quieter! We can all turn it up.
Dynamic compression is not the same thing as recorded level. Dynamic compression is a form of distortion applied to the waveform to make it sound louder by boosting quieter waveforms more than loud ones. It cannot be undone by turning the volume down.
bryede That's right! The overuse of compression is making everything equally loud, and it can't be turned down. Keep it quiet, and we'll turn it up at home.
Craig explains things here pretty well, but all I know (presonally) is that vinyl, when played back on a decent system (turntable & needle, receiver, speakers) just sounds SO much better, even to my older ears. I'd be a fan of vinyl even if I were only 18 again.
Great video. The whole reason why I started my youtube channel. I couldn't tolerate the compressed mastering, so now I have a workflow to uncompress, enhance & remaster the compressed version. I can get close to the original dynamics with respectable loudness without brickwalling.
One of the best explanations on why vinyl usually sounds better. Producing it the right way. With highs and lows. NOT compressed.
Vinyl mastering does use audio compresssion but to flatter the music not flatten it.
It doesn’t always however. It can still be compressed
@@sorysrgee Especially if the master recording is digital, which most are these days.
ReplayGain FTW in digital files from all stores and default music apps in all devices (Track and Album gain)
I would just like to say that with everything going on in the world your videos and your voice bring me extreme calm and comfort. I suffer from anxiety and with everything going on at this time I can watch your videos and forget what is going on for a bit and feel comforted to listen to something other than media sensationalism. Thank you Craig.
Agreed. You hit all of the important points. Finally someone actually said it correctly. Congrats!
Many thanks for this learning session. I’m a vinyl guy, 74 years old. I love vinyl. You did a great job of explaining the technical aspects.
Fantastic analogy my good friend ..an education of sorts which helped me appreciate the differ3nces with cd and vinyl. I do now have better understanding on a topic that can be confusing.
This is your old pal who sent you the Carlsberg glasses from Ireland. Loving it my friend.
Best insight into the loudness war and vinyl I found so far! Also very fair. Thanks a lot!
24 bit or DSD rips from Vinyl , played from my phone from its USB output throgh a stand alone DAC , sound as warm and dynamic as the Vinyl with no digital harshness or brightness, love it....yes i agree with u Sir.
The Beatles Sgt. Pepper's remix from last year is another good example of the vinyl version being quieter and punchier than the digital. I watched a few album review videos here on TH-cam when it was released and the poster would talk about how loud the CD/digital was and there would be comments below saying "try listening to the vinyl, it's much better on your ears." I tried it an they were right on.
Michael Stitt I have that album and absolutely love the dynamics in it. Great, great album.
@@nathanjones4039 THANK YOU for this! I just posted a comment asking about some of the newer remasters. Not a huge Beatles fan but I have seen this album and was tempted. I will buy it next time I see it.
I don't have the remix but I do have a 1970s stereo press and 2 original monos which all sound great and the remix that's on Spotify while some parts sound clearer, it also sounds like it's been slightly brickwalled (especially being for the benefit of Mr kite), so do you think the vinyl release of the remix would solve that issue? I was sort of put off buying it due to the brickwalling but if it's just the digital release I might buy my 4th (and hopefully last) copy of Sgt. Pepper
pretty crappy remix.............the mono version is better
You make an excellent point. That is why we love music on vinyl, less compression and more dynamics.
Hey Craig, I have been having issues with Johnny Come Lately vinyl sellers on DISCOGS!! Had really good experience for 3 years, but the talent pool (aka responsible sellers) is thinning. Thanks for the videos, good stuff! 👍
Thanks for sharing these interesting thoughts, I agree with you. I would add another good reason why vinyl could save music: the music business is not doing so well as they use to, streaming is the only income they have. It is true that they will never make as much money as they did in the past, but they can make some money if they give vinyl another chance. Nowadays we dont wont to pay a cent for a CD but we dont mind paying 20 € for a vynil record (if it is a good one). They should recognize that a good band making good albums still a good product today. All they have to do, as you said in your video, is to make good quality mastering for vinyl like they use to do, and sale it to people who cares about dynamics, also to audiophiles, collectors, fans, birthday gifts, etc, and keep doing the compressed digital trash for the rest of clients. So the music industry should be happy that they still have the chance of using this old income source.
Now the question is: will they take the chance? or will they just let it pass and keep criying?
Love you explanations!!! The music industry started the "Loudness Wars" a long time ago IMO. After many years they have now gotten a lot more sophisticated. It's definitely more of a Sound War.
Thanks for this fantastic video Craig. There are CD's that sound good., most released in the 80's sound good. Some companies today also makes good CD releases. SACD's sound fantastic.
I love vinyl, but i also love cassette's and CD's.
Well said sir. So much music these days comes across as a muddy indistinct wall of sound, some of the music is perfectly decent, but the compression has squashed the life out of it. Radio stations have also been using compression for a long time, though some of that may have been to compete with background noise in cars or wherever people may be listening.
It's already doing it now! With "HD vinyl" coming next year, the future looks bright!
HD vinyl is bullshit. It's the Digital guys trying to stick their noses in Analog to make money providing another rip-off product.
@@VeryUsMumblings I am not so sure of that. I know that it is early, but based on what was brought to my attention I think HD vinyl has positive potential.
Vinyl never really got to see noise reduction. There are some DBX records out there, and if you have a decoder, they sound very quiet and amazing. Add to that a pop and click remover and you have vinyl sound without the noise. Put a switch on the turntable and it can play both standard and DBX. Did no one think of this yet?
@@bikdav Analog Planet, Michael Fremer's channel did an interview with the guys who are promoting HD Vinyl. It's mostly about creating a stamper from a digital file, then bypassing the nickel-plating stage in the process to press more records from the same stamper. It saves money for the record company, and a few chemicals, but 'HD' is just advertising.
@@VeryUsMumblings Yes. I saw that. Just the same, I am awaiting to hear one of the new disc whe available.
My late 80s early 90s CDs hit the top of the vu meeter occasionally but all the later CDs top out for the entire song.
“How Vinyl Could Save Music”
Bold statement 😊
You are 100% right. Thank you for your videos and you do such a great job. I was in to wax back in the 60’s 70’s and just got back in to it because of you. I just bought a RT 85 Fluance do to what you said about your Fluance Thank you.
Loudness wars make it impossible to turn up the volume on your amp, in a normal way! Some, mostly, cd's are so loud, you can turn on your amp to 1 and it is too loud already! Horrible invention!
Very informative. I too bought Clockwork Angels in digital format, then I saw them play it live. I may have to break down & buy the vinyl. I did get the hologram 2112 though!
VINYL RECORDS AIN'T DEAD AND NEVER WILL BE
Technics is bringing back the SL-1200 model, but it wont be cheap
I'm a vinylist DJ 100%. Also vinyl hasn't, and will never completely go away on any level.
@@crazycuts6891 yeah baby!!!
I agree, Darlene Goodwin. Thumbs up. I have a slightly larger vinyl record collection, and prefer music on this medium because most of the records from the late sixties, 1970s, to the end of the 1980s are recorded very well on vinyl; at least 90% of them, anyway.
Jeff how much do you think it will be sold for?
I feel exceptionally well armed now for my next vinyl vs digital debate. GREAT video!
keep em comin' craig.....love these videos man!
It is possible to have too much of a good thing. Just because a CD has 90 dB of dynamic headroom, doesn't mean it is a good thing necessarily. How many times have you had to turn up the volume on a CD in order to hear the soft passages, only to have the thing blast your eardrums into bloody puddles when the really loud passages begin? That is what over 90 dB of dynamic headroom means, and it aint fun... Many CD players have a 'loudness' button that leaves the loud passages alone, while artificially amping up the soft passages to avoid just this scenario. More dB doesn't mean more better... Craig, you hit one of the nails on the head when you said laying wider tracks on a vinyl would mean less time per side, but another reason is that being a physical medium, when the stylus goes from a very soft sound to trying to reproduce a very loud passage, it is the equivalent of your car running over a speed bump at high speed - the needle can literally pop right out of the groove. That isn't a good thing :) Sometimes even 40 dB of dynamic range is too much. What I like about Vinyl is that it forces greedy record executives to obey physical law, no matter how short sighted they may be. Peace.
Hey Craig, good to see you posting again. Fortunately many music from the 90s and back can still be found in its pre-loudness wars era mastering. Too bad the “Turn Me Up” (turnmeup.org) initiative never got any traction...
I think youre missing an aspect in the video here. The loudness wars, despite the name, doesnt necessarily have to do with making things loud, just compressed. And if you think about it like that, then you realize it its doable on vinyl too. Because whats loud is only what you compare it to. You might not have the same output level as a CD, but you can still compress the music, just quieter. You will have to crank the amp more, but its still as compressed as the CD.
As you mentioned its all about the mastering though. The only issue is how few good mastering engineers we have left in the industry, and most of them are getting up in age. Scary thought.
As I mentioned, the problem with having to turn up vinyl is that you also turn up the surface noise. There's not much room for that on vinyl.
@@VinylTV33 Given how some very nicely mastered records can have more surface noise than poorly mastered ones I dont think its a factor taken into consideration beyond a certain point. The mastering engineer will most of the time assume good vinyl is used, because its not really a problem on most music. Yeah you might have some noise between tracks, but while music is playing you have to go pretty darn quiet to simultaneously hear surface noise over a tune.
I cant really think of many records beyond a few Pic Discs and un serious pressings that have a distracting surface noise floor. The real problem is crackles and pops, which cant really be accounted for at all until the record is produced and played.
I wish I had some math on this, but Id think that you can do some pretty compressed and quiet music on a record while still maintaining a 20 minute or so runtime per side and not having surface noise being a problem.
Dynamically compressed music actually makes surface noise less noticeable because of its relentless dominance over it. You generally hear noise in the quiet parts.
@@bryede Thats a point too, if its compressed, nothing will be super quiet either, so it would override the surface noise better than a very dynamic cut, even if its compressed quieter than the CD.
the term "loudness war" refers to the percieved loudness - not the signal amplitude - dynamic range compression (among other things) will make you THINK something sounds louder. even tho the compressed and uncompressed signal would peak at the same amplitude. (like the 0db hard cap of digital audio for example - you can't have +3 db peaks on digital)
Great to see you making videos, Craig! Keep it up!
Another great video, Craig! Thank you for getting back to me, and communicating, and explaining about the different formats on the topic of "Best Audio Format". I was surprised, and delighted that you responded, and explained further. Getting back to this topic, I mostly have vinyl records from the late sixties, mostly from the 1970s, to the end of the 1980s. Up to 90%, at least, are recorded very well, from my opinion, and I mostly prefer that music since I grew up in the 1970s to the 1980s.
I realize that there were plenty of one hit wonders during the nineteen eighties, but more than a couple of hits are wonderful; to me. In my opinion there was some good rock and roll, as well as pop up to the early 1990s.I understand not everything was very good music, and possibly recorded well, but up to the late 1980s I was a very young man, so I tend to like, and prefer that time of music. By the way, on other TH-cam videos I also write vinyl is final. Again, thanks for reading my opinions in the previous post.
loved the video again Craig.. more very important information ..
I had an interesting experience recently. I bought a fresh copy of Revolver. I had an original copy but it had a bit too many pops and ticks. Plastered on the front was a big sticker that said that the album had been "remastered". Two things I noticed immediately - they had added a new track on each side that was not on the original. The second thing? A lot of the bass was gone. I did a side by side and the "remastered" version sounded tinny and thin in comparison to the original.
I think the reason for the different editing/mastering may also be the environment in which the listening happens. Perhaps the digital version is intended to be more portable and listened to in places with more background noise. For example a radio edit needs to be heard above the tragic and car noise for people travelling in their cars.
Whereas people listen to vinyl in their homes and it is a medium that demands your attention.
As others said ... if the listener wants the sound louder that is the purpose of a system's volume control ... compressor/ compression as I understand it's called flat lines the highest peaks in the music so the lower sounds are louder than the original sounds ... that flat lining cause the drum and or trebles to be cut off ... examine it in audacity (zoomed in on the wave at the peak point ... you will absolutely see how it is flattened out which indeed changes how it originally was ... image a rubber band plucked in the open air ... now imagine it between two cardboard pieces so it hits them as if swings in the motion ... compression camaflouges it better but you get the idea ... it's like a controlled distortion... I'm sure most people still have copies of early released CDs when they actually reserved the recorded signal... those sound POSITIVELY awesome no compression at all... (then they learned how to muck it up) today's CDs sound distorted terribly bad IMHO hopefully the company's will learn "hey stereos do have a volume control" (we can hope anyway) LOL
I'm glad you singled out the effect of over-compression on drum hits. Every drummer should be crying out against this.
For several years now I've only been buying new music on vinyl because of this very issue. From my experience, CDs mostly sound fantastic right up until around 1998-2000 or so. If the year starts with a "2" then I can assume it's over-compressed. Also infuriating are "remastered" CD releases of older recordings with the compression cranked up. When I see remastered on the label, I mentally translate that as "Special Ebola Edition!" Stay away!
Unfortunately, there's a time period from about 2000 through about 2008 or 2010 or so when CDs were hyper-compressed but vinyl was still in limbo, and a lot of that music is just not available in any form that isn't sonically crushed. To give you a particularly example: ZZ Top's Mescalero. I wish so much for a version of this with decent sound quality.
If you want a recent recording that sounds fantastic, I'd point you toward the vinyl release of Styx's The Mission. If you ever liked Styx at all, to me this ranks right up with their best.
This is being said alot and I did note that in CD format infancy all CD's where from Japan, Germany, as US companies weren't ready to get into the act. After the US versions came out it went downhill IMHO.
@@sgoode1952Hmm, that's an interesting observation, but I would be wary of drawing any direct cause-and-effect between the two. As far as I know, digital mastering for CDs isn't done at the pressing plant. It can be done anywhere, and the plant just runs whatever data files they were sent. Also, I'm pretty sure those US pressing plants were up and running in the late 1980s, so that was a full decade before the over-compression trend became widespread.
I was reading an article somewhere and it said "To work with cheap earbuds many engineers simply copy an album and make it louder" i got a kick out of that. Buy decent earphones.
You are so right on everything you said. And what you were saying about recording a vinyl record on CD is absolutely right. I've done it many times, and the CD sounds exactly the same as the vinyl record.
I am an avid vinyl collector and I have never said to anyone vinyl records sound better than CD's. Theoretically, CD's should sound better than vinyl. BUT, vinyl records DO sound DIFFERENT than CD's. I just prefer the sound I hear on vinyl over that of a CD or any other digital medium.
Hi, Graig! Cheers from Brazil. I was rewatching some of your videos and I've noticed that the video where you did a comparission between an AC/DC reissue to an original pressing is not available anymore. Or am I wrong? I was going to show it to a friend but couldn't find it. Anyway, thanx for the great videos. Couldn't agree more about the fact that the diference between vinyl and CDs looooots of times are in the mastering. I've have some early 90s CDs that sound great.
It seems that video has been disabled due to copyright. How else are we supposed to talk about vinyl if we can't play comparisons between cartridges and pressings??
@@VinylTV33 Exactly! How??? The weird thing is that I've watched some videos of pressing comparisons using Floyd and Zep on the BarakaPDub channel and both video are still available on his channel. Maybe is the fact that you have more subscribers and your AC/DC video received more views. Maybe is the fact that BarakaDPub comparisons were done just using 15 seconds of each song. But this copyright thing is a dead end anyways. Since you compared 2 LPs (original and reissue) you had to do use the whole song (btw, you choose the best song on that album: "Shoot to Thrill" has the exactly right dynamics to compare loud and smooth passages). In his case, he compared 4/5 pressings. So, a whole song it would make it difficult to analyze the details on each pressing. Thanx for the answer, Craig.
Excellent video. I really enjoy watching your channel its nice to see someone talking to the average man, woman who may not have or doesn't want to spend 10 grand on an amplifier etc.
The LPs of Red Hot Chili Peppers are the perfect exemple of the loudness wars...
Oasis Morning Glory. That was one of the very first offenders.
The only "loudness war" I am generally aware of is inside the average movie theater watching the latest blockbuster movie. And well ... I can't say I appreciate it, quite seriously.
As for just basic recordings of music, one of the very best examples I have is a CD of Stravinsky's Firebird Suite, an oldish Telarc recording.
THAT recording has a very serious dynamic range. Vinyl? No way - And besides - who loves pre and post groove echo, clicks and pops, potential for scratches, no possibility of listening to Beethoven's 9 symphony in one sitting without flipping the vinyl over to side B, and etc. into infinity.
Generally speaking . . . the thing which makes the greatest difference in the potential for high quality recordings is the recording venue - the actual space used - the microphone placement, and the proper choice of microphones, the brand, etc. Compression? Maybe that's occasionally necessary for vinyl, but NOT for digital. Which element do we often ignore? The choice of speakers. There is actually a difference between good speakers, much better speakers, and the very best speakers in existence.
I own a sample of each kind - a nice old pair of Yamaha 2-way box speakers with a 10 inch woofer and a dome tweeter. Dome? I thinks so; An original set of Boston Acoustic tower speakers which are no longer made; and finally, one of the very best sets of old Infinity speakers. Model? I can't remember. But I think Infinity made only one set of speakers which was better than my pair. Since we're returning to vinyl ... Let's also go back to cars with 2 cycle engines, to cameras which take 110 film, and to cathode ray tube televisions.
My only joy in returning to something OLD is a cheap old Kodak camera which uses a film size which I'm not sure is still available, a film which would be LARGER in size than the equivalent of today's medium format film cameras, if they still exist? You know, like an old Hasselblad 2 and 1/4 inch film camera. I've seen one recently made 11x14 inch print from that old Kodak camera, a more or less ancient family photo. And generally speaking, despite that cheap one or two element lens, the print quality is MUCH better than expected.
The family was sitting in a horse drawn carriage. My grandmother was holding a baby, my dad who is now 82 years old. Begging your pardon for the family history story.
Very clear explanation. Thanks!
First-class video! Great job!
I just subbed, excellent content Craig!
I love your graphical display comparing a vinyl vs cd recordings. It really clarified it to my brain! I sure wish you were still making videos. Stupid TH-cam!!
Seems to me, Most everything has gotten Out of Control!. Grrreat video & content. I thank thee, Craig for all you do...
I appreciate it that you don't damned CD's and Digital generally than other Vinyl Enthuasiasts do.Digital recorded Musik can sound fantastic if the Mastering is done properly.Same for Vinyl.I love both Mediums.Some of for me important Albums i buy the CD also as a Vinyl Copy.I love it to compare them in Sound.Sometimes the Vinyl Copy sounds (for me) better,sometimes the CD.You have really a great Channel and your Videos are Fun to watch,thanx
Compression occurred on lps also. DBX had a dynamic range expander which worked well.
Wow, I sure thank you for this video. I learned a LOT. Your graphic using Audacious(?) made it 100% clear what is going on. Yes, I like my music loud, but I like the dynamics. There is such a thing as too loud, when you lose all the highs and lows. I am slowly learning this...At 50 years old I am finally opening up to classical and jazz and swing and other genres. Turn the volume down a bit and experience the emotion. Yes sir, Craig, you have connected a few dots for me with this one. I hope they start mastering albums in a sane way again. Hey, I am just getting back into vinyl. You have already done your favorites, but how about more on some of the better remastered albums? I heard Back in Black sucks. How are the Zeppelin albums? Zep II? Beatles? What are some of the better new vinyl releases?
I have the AC/DC re-issue and an original pressing. There's a video on my channel comparing the two. They are definitely different. I do have a few of the Zeppelin ones. I think they sound awesome, but have not A/B'd them with the originals I have. Supertramp Breakfast in America sounds awesome on the re-issue, but Crime of the Century is distorted on both re-issues I have, compared to the CD (the CD is much better on that one). Seems like they added overdrive/clipping on purpose.
Hi Craig nice video again. You are bang on about loudness. I love both vinyl and cd up to a point and that point would have been about 1991. Cds before 1991 sound really good. Go find a copy of Dire Straits Brothers in Arms or Tears for Fears Songs from the Big Chair on cd from 1985 and compare it to the vinyl hardly any difference. Then in 1991/92 cd sales took over records went out of fashion and shortly after that loudness bs started. It was gradual but I find that's when it really started.
CDs are mixed-down. Since 2000 or so, most recording studios record at a higher sampling rate, (24/96kHz or higher) while the CD standard hasn't changed. Essentially, the CD is compressed from a higher resolution digital file to a lower one. This is done because most home equipment playback is still at the CD 16bit/44.1khz standard. The compression can be done well or done badly, the bad version caused the 'brick wall' effect that you mentioned, but all compression causes a loss in quality. The vinyl version is likely a straight, uncompressed version (essentially a higher resolution digital recording) because there is no need to mix-down for the playback device that you're using, which could be a brand new turntable or one that's thirty years old (like mine).
Thanks for your comment. Keep in mind that down-sampling from 24/96 to 16/44 is not compressing, and it shouldn't cause audio compression. It's more of a conversion and if done as a strait down-sample, it shouldn't affect the audio other than it's less resolution. So unless they compress the audio as well as down-sampling it, there should be virtually no difference. The reason studios work with such high resolution is because the data gets tossed about through different plugins and bounced around. 16/44 recordings can degrade noticeably when put through that, while 24/96 recordings can hold up much better in the box while all that is going on. They down-sample the final mix for distribution, and 16/44 is more than enough resolution for human ears.
You are confusing sample rate conversion and data compression with dynamic range compression. Recordings are made louder with dynamic range compressors and limiters, and these have been used and abused for over 50 years. They can be analog units, or digital. You can have a high res signal running at 24/96k, and still squash the dynamic life out of it. Engineers do it all the time. Sometimes to great creative effect, but often it's overused to make mixes that are TOO LOUD and compressed. I mix music and I know this. I am under pressure not only by record companies, but by the ARTISTS themselves to make mixes that are as loud and compressed as other records. I try to educate them, but sometimes they just want what they want.
@@TheMirolab Thanks for the clarification. Although it's disappointing to think it's just as much the artist to blame as the marketing department. :)
You're talking absolute nonsense. Going from 24/96 to 16/44 has nothing to do with dynamic range or loudness war. Over 16/44 is beyond human hearing. There are reasons to record in 24/96 due to noise floor etc.
Incidentally, the LUFS standards brought in by Spotify etc are what is fighting the loudness of modern records more so than vinyl.
It is supremely ironic though that the vinyl technical limitations actually result in better dynamics.
Pre 1996 CDs can sound awesome. The problem is that they put the shitty mix on CD with DR6 and the dynamic DR11 mix on the record. Notable recent exceptions are Chinese Democracy and Random Access Memories.
@@JonnyInfinite Your opinion is your own as to what's good or not, but there are no sampling rates above human hearing. Sampling rates and audio frequencies are measuring two different things.
And yes, CDs are compressed, it's just a different kind of compression. It doesn't matter to me if people prefer CDs. I just want the makers to be upfront about it and tell people what they're getting.
btw: Random Access Memories was a mix of analog and digital masters. They released it on vinyl specifically because Daft Punk made an Analog master intending to release on Vinyl from the get-go. It is not irony (not completely, anyway) that the vinyl sound has better dynamics. Daft Punk intended this and listened to both digital and analog recordings before deciding whether or not to use digital effects like Pro Tools. Some tracks, like Omar Hakim's drums on certain songs, went straight from Ampex tapes to analog tape masters to vinyl.
As far as LUFS standard, I don't know about that. I tend to avoid Spotify. I try to avoid itunes as well. In fact, I've heard many people make their own mp3s at home from their own CDs because they don't like what the stream-companies are doing. Anyway, thanks for the comment :)
4:00 Actually they can and did compress sound on some vinyl records. This was common on many of the "greatest hits from various artists" records. One in particular is Donna Summer's track called "I Feel Love". The dynamic range was crushed in the track in the hits album that has 20 tracks per side.
Yes, and they sound like crap. Ever heard a K-tel album? 22 Fantastic Hits, compressed, bass removed, half the level, and verses cut out.
Amazing video, as usual, thank you
Just picked up Metalllica's Death Magnetic on vinyl and it sounds GREAT!!!!!
cool point of view. have you seen they released new versions of the fluance tables, so our RT81 has been discontinued. The newer versions higher than the RT80 also no longer have the PHONO stage included in the chassis. Happy listening.
I see they still have the 80 and 81 on their site. I'm excited about their new models, but I don't consider my RT81 obsolete. Maybe one day... ;)
I noticed back in 1984 or 1985 when the cd was coming up the vinyl records where getting louder even sometimes till distortion. I hated that. But they did that to compete with cds. Lukely now a days they use better equipment and better mastering. I'm in vinyl my hole live.
Does anyone in the community know if modern tracks are generally remastered for vinyl? It seems easier and cheaper to cut straight from the digital master. Maybe I'm jaded but it seems more likely modern methods would often just cut that corner and not remaster
The qualitative superiority of vinyl is very obvious when you hear a comparison with the compressed version. However, engineers of a certain age tell me that in the 70s other technical tricks and fixes were used to bring out the sound quality. I am not sure that I would give digital sound such a free pass (vs analogue sound), but that is another matter and can depend on exactly when the recording was made. I hope that the industry sees the potential in the vinyl opportunity. They can sell our old record collections to us a third time.
...a really good point and so true...
Excellent video, Craig. Vinyl has return to stay for at least a couple hundred centuries. After which we will see what will replace it.
This is what I have been trying to tell people too! It is the mastering not the medium.
I have Rush Moving Pictures on regular CD, on Mobile Fidelity Sound labs Gold UDCD, and on vinyl record. The record sounds better than even the gold CD. I recorded the record on to a burned cd using good digital software, equipment, turntable, and cartridge. Now the burned CD or file copy is the best copy. 44.1 24 bit rip and edit to 44.1 16bit final file.
Awesome! Good on the 24 to 16 bit down sampling. With those bit depths only affecting noise level, not overall quality, vinyl is equivalent to 8 bit, or 12 on a really good day. Never any need for 24 bit in the final file. I usually rip at 24 bit so I don't have to worry about levels as much, then down sample like you do, once I get it all cozy and normalized.
Love channel Craig. Do you have any m bloomfield in that collection
Great, I could not put it better.
There is a database over albums. That people have measured how much dynamic range the album has.
And if loudness is used then it will be lower. You can download the software and measure your self. And upload the result to the DB.
dr.loudness-war.info
You can then decide if you want to buy the album on certain format.
The same goes for for example this album (44/24 HD):
dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/118099
And the (Vinyl) of the same album:
dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/133463
And super duper high resolution digital format do not equal to better sound reproduction/quality automatically.. that the above is a example of. :)
You told me things that I never knew.
3:30 I think this confuses the issue a bit. Dynamic compression can either be a mixing/production or a mastering decision and many records have been made from highly compressed source material. The solution to running time is either to drop the whole side by a couple dB (which doesn't affect compression, just playback level) or to switch to a double album. I think the main reason records frequently have less dynamic compression has to do with the expectations of the target audience.
For people who think loudness/dynamic compression is about turning your volume up or down, look at 13:37. Your volume knob stretches the waveform up and down away from the center line, but it cannot make the bottom waveform look like the top one at any setting. The waveform has been permanently distorted by compression.
I enjoyed listening to your video and have just subscribed......BUT Audio Compression has always existed since music recording began. There are two reasons for it: 1 - Compression executed to fit the limitations of the recording medium or playback medium, and/or 2- Compression done to make the recording more attractive/satisfying to the targeted listener and their environment. Recordings using consumer analog formats must ALWAYS be compressed because of limitations of the format. The 1st phonographs had terrible S/N & dynamic range...so the artists had to scream into the microphone so that they could be understood over the noise. As phono recording improved, dynamic range could be expanded...but certain types of music, like classical orchestral music, still had to be compressed a great deal in the masters so they would work on vinyl. Pop music has been compressed from the start because most mastering was done for AM Radio and to be listened to in cars where backgound noise was high. Radio is where listeners in the 50s/60s originally heard most Pop cuts. The vinyl versions were compressed too so that they would sound like the radio...or sound great on a dance floor...this is reason 2. You seem to be saying that today, when mastering vinyl the producers have made a conscious decision that vinyl listeners are more sophisticated than digital listeners and prefer wider dynamics. The problem is first...problem 1 still exists. It may be that on a given Rush album the mastering producer decided to increase dynamic range for vinyl...but on ALL orchestral classical music...and on music of any genre that already has wide dynamic range, the vinyl version must be more compressed to fit the format. I also expect, that if indeed Rush expanded dynamic range for vinyl (judging that is what vinyl audiences want) then they would do the same thing Or MORE for the Hi-Res Audio release....whose listeners are at least as sophisticated as vinyl listeners...and where the limitations of the format (reason 1 above) are never an issue.
I'm not quite sure most record companies are really on board for adding back the dynamic range in the mastering process for vinyl. I think what some record companies are doing for music that is released on digital and vinyl is cheating by limiting the frequency response (to reduce the possibility of sibilance) and reducing the stereo soundstage (to prevent loud distortion) for the vinyl in order to compensate for the lack of dynamic range in the digital master used for both formats.
I can't even listen to the local classic rock station on FM anymore. They compress the crap out of the old music, and it sounds me a headache. In the old days you could tape your favorite songs off of FM and have a listenable tape. OK on a cheap car stereo, but not at home or even on a good car stereo in a quiet car.
Spot on mate
Thanks man! Great video!
your making sense here well done. just one small observation regarding the mp3 u bought 320 isnt high quality.
Thank you! With all do respect, I beg to differ on the 320kbps mp3 being low quality, and I will do a sure-fire test in an upcoming video that will prove the quality of 320kbps mp3. Cheers!
Jack White is the only guy I know who masters and cuts straight to acetate when recording.
I think you might be making the assumption that CDs and digital files will be mastered the same way as records. I have a feeling that might not be the case _unless_ customers demand it.
Records have to be mastered differently to other formats because if you over compress a record, the stylus starts jumping out the groove, so records just could not be as "loud" as tapes or CDs.
I do think that record labels should take things like volume normalisation (iTunNorm and ReplayGain) into account. You brickwall everything on a digital file and the music app on the device you're listening to has ReplayGain or iTunNorm, that brickwalled track suddenly goes very quiet. A track with less compression suddenly pops as the normalisation doesn't drop the volume as much.
The dynamic range in orchestral performances is probably why classical radio stations stream at a higher bitrate over the internet. I do know that BBC Radio 3 don't use dynamic compression on their transmissions whereas other BBC stations do (and stream at higher bitrates than other stations do)
Torrents of vinyl rips vs legally bought digital copies - once again record labels break the First Law Of Anti-Piracy, don't give pirates a better experience than paying customers.
I think a better saviour of our music is still going to be volume normalisation included in default music apps on devices (and included by default in digital files sold by the major stores) iTunes insist of volume normalisation, I think Amazon and Google Music should do the same.
I have Doors Sacd and the same Doors cd reg. They sound just a like each other. My gear is Marantz Sa 8006 player and a oppo 83 se player which both players play Sacd but with this Doors Sacd and Reg. Cd you can hear no difference. So you are right it is how they Engineer the Music that makes the difference on how the music Sounds.
I'm a big music fan and aware of increased loudness of modern releases, but I found reasoning behind this as "we will it louder to be louder then others" kinda dumb. I have idea that wide dynamic range is good in "greenhouse conditions", when you have a perfect audio setup, a perfect source of sound, a perfect quiet place and a perfect hearing. Otherwise when you have cheap earbuds and you listening music in the train, or while you on the street, or if you have not good hearing and you not able to hear the quietest moments or instruments of song, smaller DR will be better.
Sorry for my bad English. I hope my point is understandable
For decades vinyl is coming back now.. i dare to say it's not coming back. It never left!
When i digitize some vinyl I get really annoyed with the over-brickwalling and normalization of modern music. Digitized vinyl with just my simple battery-operated SD recorder just sounds great compared to purchased iTunes / Amazon files. All because of the over-driving levels of digital sources.EDIT: Thanks for the waveform comparison. Basically with all the spikes and transients evened out, the effect is the music / audio version of ALL CAPS in typing. Now I wish the 'high end' file download companies stop fooling around with 24 bit nonsense and just release less-normalized versions.
well spoken sir :-) I totally agree. BUT where did you buy that awsome shirt :-D?
High quality MP3 is an oxymoron...
I am awaiting a fresh 180g Zep IV to compare to the 24/96 FLAC version. Bought a serious turntable after 25 years of digital audiophilia. Then immediately had to buy a record cleaning machine as all my old vinyl is filthy and pretty much unplayable...all part of the fun...
How Vinyl Could Save Music, or...How Vinyl Could Kill My Wallet Whilst Saving Music.
Now, a vinyl will not always sound good, since it also depends on the source of the master, whether it is digital or analogue. If the source is good, the sound will be good. Mastering also has a lot of influence, but the main thing is the source.
In the case of CDs, from what I understand, the first CDs were flat copies of the master with some eq adjustments.
I think vinyl sounds better to my ears because LP's can capture ALL the audio information! CD'S only capture 15%, given it reproduces that 15% better than LP's can! It's just the sampling rate is not high enough! Information makes a HUGE difference! I'd rather have more information and a little less dynamics, than to have near perfect reproduction of the frequency , and 85% less information! Actually putting CD to vinyl makes the music sound more 3 dimensional (to my ears, your experience my vary) ! Thank you Craig, nice job!
George White's vinyl city
Can you provide link/s to the cd can ... 15% theory?
George White's vinyl city bullshit
Whatever happened to Pixall roller refills? Why can't I get them anymore?? 😩
I do enjoy your videos
I love your shirt! Where can I buy one!? Cheers
There are over 300 comments here so I apologize if this is already mentioned. I purchased Black Sabbath 13 album and it has two records. So for all the reasons you mentioned maybe that's the reason there are two in not one.
I hope this dude is okay. Hasn't made a video in 10 months :(
Nice point, cheers.
Sir I agree with you.
That Rush vinyl is still compressed a lot. Sadly. But much better than how they mastered for CD; which should be illegal.
The sound of these compressed stations was S- - t. The station owners thought AM Radio sounded so bad that excessive loudness did not make a difference. Sadly previous to this heavy processing AM Stations sounded pretty good if you listened to them on a wide bandwidth receiver.
The question is why do they master things so loud? I guess it makes sense in the context it is being listened to - ie. in cars, on portable devices etc where there is a lot of background noise to compete with.Not good for listening to at home on a good hi fi set up though.
So is vinyl 16bit 44.1khz also?
Vinyl doesn't have a fixed number of bits or samples. It's like film. It has limitations but they're not based on a fixed resolution. So the answer is NO.
@@VinylTV33 ok thanks
I presumed Rush ended their particular loudness war with Vapor Trails. Oh well.
Heard that. When I first put that disc on, went into the other room, I came running back in to turn it down before I got a complaint from the neighbors!
This is why modern album records are now double LPs...cause theyre loud and bassy. I have a Taylor Swift album that has 2 SONG'S each 4 minutes on side A. One of the most distorted albums I have
Vinyl first and streaming sec in my world .
The vinyl frontier.
So basically vinyl has come back just to again meet it's demise when and if company's change there tune on cds/digital?
I don't know why vinyl came back. I will tell you that I started getting back into it BEFORE I knew it was coming back. Maybe a natural cycle.
@@VinylTV33 Whatever the future holds for vinyl... I'll probably continue to add to my collection as much as possible because I'm one who likes it for several reasons personally.