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.
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.
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.
"Air" is such an important thing. When I play old pressings of records for my friends in their 20s who've never heard vinyl, they're often amazed at the dynamic sounds coming out of the speakers.
Great Video! The answer is for bands to let Steven Wilson handle their mastering/mixing for their vinyl editions of their albums. The man is a genius with sound. He loves vinyl and is meticulous in his vinyl mixes that he does for himself and for other bands.
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.
I think another major aspect of ‘why the loudness wars’ is the idea that in modern times with digital files, people consume single tracks out of context of the album. Songs are in playlists, shuffled, random etc et. So producers of these files want their single tracks to be louder than other people’s single tracks... in that context. Therefore they try and ‘make their track louder’. Contrast that with vinyl, the context of that format is to only listen to to the whole side of an album in one sitting. And hence the only comparison, track to track is with other tracks on the album... and therefore no reason to compete with other tracks... they’re all from the same band and therefore can work together across the whole side/album. Perhaps the iPod triggered the loudness wars, Vinyl doesn’t need to join that fight?
the loudness war started WAY before portable media players, or even portable CD players became widespread. it was not the iPod that started the loudness war - if anything, it was jukeboxes. good old vinyl jukeboxes even. the basic principle of a playlist applies to jukeboxes - a bunch of random tracks taken out of context played one after the other. plus, jukeboxes were typically set to a fixed amplification level not to be changed by the people using the jukebox - so the only way for a label to make their record stand out more than the other records was to increase the perceived loudness (= add more dynamic range compression)
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?
Thank you for this video. Watching you talk about this educated me and made me fall in love with music even more than I already am. 2019 to me is all about consuming music the right way (for me).
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.
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! 👍
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.
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.
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 UA-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
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 UA-cam videos I also write vinyl is final. Again, thanks for reading my opinions in the previous post.
Chris S. It’s not necessarily that vinyl is better, it’s how the digital copies are mastered. Some of the best CDs I have were from the beginning of the CD revolution. They were not remastered with all that compression and loudness. The Motown early CDs sound fantastic, although quieter. The new remasters of the Motown catalog sound awful in comparison.
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.
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.
You hit the nail right on the head with this explanation. I've compared a CD copy and a vinyl copy of the same music some time ago now and the vinyl record sounded "better" even with the pops and clicks because there was more dynamic range in the music. The CD just sounded overwhelmingly loud/the same through out all the tracks. I have ripped some of my very expensive records to digital FLACs (96Khz/32bit reduce to 24bit) while maintaining the peaks and valleys of the song letting the loudest parts just hit the 0dB mark. When I played back each to my friends and colleagues and challenged them to tell the difference between the vinyl and digital recording, they couldn't. Mind you, I did manually remove the pops and clicks after the fact, but did nothing to reduce the "noise" inherent with vinlys seeing the noise floor is so high. Keep up the good work!
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!
Very well explained! I really appreciate it that you’re telling it in an open minded and unbiased way, instead of most ppl who like to brag and being snobbish about vinyl.
I saw a comment a while ago from a person who didn't like a new album because it went all quiet then suddenly there was an explosion or loud guitar or vocals. Erm that's called dynamic range and you'd get that if you went to see an orchestra or a live band, (provided the guy at the mixing desk doesn't push all the sliders up to max). We need that variation. It's what makes music sound interesting. It's almost a metaphor for today's lifestyles. Everyone rushing around, wanting everything now and no exceptions!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Back in the 1970's AM Radio Stations, in large markets, engaged in loudness wars. The idea was to out shout your competition using heavy audio processing.
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 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.
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!
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.
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...
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.
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)
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
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.
I have been banging on to people about this for a while now as well.. Modern engineers in the main, seemingly have forgotten the importance of the space on either side of the wave form!! RENAISSANCE 😊 RENAISSANCE ☺️
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.
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.
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 sounded great in the 80s. Now its very much hit or miss. And the loudness bullshit is the reason for that. If you play a new cd and put an old one in after, you have to turn up the volume. And it sounds just as amazing as a good vinyl. You can see on the cd how much space of the cd is has been used. If the same cd is 50% space as the original press, that is a very big warning sign.
Ok wait... CDs are all recorded at the same bitrate, so it shouldn't matter what the signal is. 60 minutes of whatever will take up the same space as 60 minutes of whatever else. There's no track pitch changes, as with vinyl.
@@VinylTV33 I have no clue about the technology. I just look at the playing surface of cds. A remaster from the 2000s with two bonus songs has an almost identical size playing surface as the 1987 original. But it doesn't have quite the raw sound that one reviewer said would make your flowers die.
that is totally not how audio CDs work. it is possible to increase the density of an audio CD to a certain degree (i've seen CDs with up to 100 minutes total playtime) and this is done in the same way as it was done to increase play time on vinyl records - just pack the "grooves" tighter together. that could explain why the "used area" on a CD may differ between new and old releases. however, unlike on vinyl records, a higher density on audio CDs does not mean decreased sound quality. it is still 44.1 KHz @ 16 bits uncompressed PCM because that is all a standard CD player will understand. the possibilty that a standard CD player will fail to recognise or play those higher density discs properly might increase if the laser has problems with the tighter spacing of the "grooves" - but you'd notice right away if that happens because dropouts, hangs and read error artifacts that go beyond the CD players error correction capabilities are easy to hear. that's the thing with digital stuff: it either works 100% or it does not. there is no degradation of sound quality by the storage media, cables or other parts of the playback chain before the final DAC. as long as the DAC at the end of the signal chain can still tell a 1 from a 0, you get the exact thing that was put onto that storage media to begin with. now why does the 2000s remaster sound different from the 1987 original ? well - because it's a remaster. that means they did something to the music before pressing it onto CDs again. if they would just take the same digital master that was used to make the original CDs back in 1987 those new CDs would sound exactly like they did in 1987. that means if you don't like the sound of the new 2000s remaster you can be angry, say they messed it up for you and stick to the 1987 original if you still have or can still get the 1987 release in good working condition.
@@KenjiTech You just said that how not how it works. Then you said it might be because of that. Today's extreme metal EPs look like early 90s cd singles Yet they are 15 minutes longer. And today extreme metal cds can sound great. And they sound horrible. The double blast bass drums have no bass sound at all is a good example. And it has to be a mastering thing....
"that is not how CDs work" was related to any "degradation" of audio quality at higher track pitch - because that is technically not possible with audio CDs - they either play at 44.1/16 or they don't play at all and the CD player can either handle higher density discs or it can't. i would not worry too much about what the silver side of a disc looks like (given it is not dirty or damaged) because that tells you nothing important. if a certain album that only takes up half the space on a CD (= the visible "ring" appears in the middle) would be made to take up almost all of it (so the visible "ring" would be almost at the very edge of the disc) that would not improve anything. if it sounds bad, it sounded like that the day that final master copy entered the pressing plant. so yeah ... if anything, the mixing and mastering got worse over the years, not the CD itself as a medium
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.
Not all music styles lend themselves to dynamics (i.e. most metal styles). However, something that is lost when you heavily compressed the music - and the limiter is really a compressor with an infinite compression ratio - is definition. Part of what makes modern music so fatiguing to listen to is because everything is put at maximum volume, everything becomes aurally humongous to where it just sounds like mush. I know that's how Bob Dylan described a lot of modern music nowadays. This becomes more fatiguing with pop productions, which go for a wall of sound approach and you have to make every single second "exciting". There is only so much "excitement" one can take. To sum up, not all music depends on dynamics to be effective. But I think that nearly all music (maybe even all) music depends on some kind of contrast, whether it's in dynamics or in timbre or any number of things. Actually, the way I've come to describe this intense loud over the last couple of decades is the "Sam Kinison approach" where HEY! IF YOU LIKED THAT LOUD PART OF THE SONG THAT LAST FOR ONE SECOND, WHY NOT MAKE THE ENTIRE FOUR MINUTES OF A SONG AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE YOU LIKE THAT EXCITEMENT ONCE THEN WHY NOT HAVE THAT OVER 9000 TIMES AS LONG AND THEREFORE IT'S THE MOST EXCITING EXCITING THING EVER IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF EXCITING EXCITING THINGS!!! AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!. Point made =D
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.
Great video and some modern music has dynamics to it. Prime example is Billie Eilish. Listen to her track called Happier than ever. It goes from a near whisper at the start and builds up to a crazy, distorted crescendo Top notch production. Its great thru headphones where you can hear all the little nuances in the song and stuff going on in the background of it. I mostly buy 60s-70s music on vinyl but there are a few current artists I'll buy vinyl. I listen to vinyl, cassettes, CDs and I also stream newer music off Tidal masters.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 UA-cam!!
When Apple corps released the 2009 remaster of the stereo version of the Beatles albums they took the CD master and put it to vinyl. Unlike the mono versions of the 2009 remaster to vinyl, they took those albums from the original mono master tapes .
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.
I’m a musician, in my 40s, and I really don’t think loudness is an issue. I see it as a stylistic choice like anything else’s. I love listening to records and I am growing my collection, but Not because it’s a “better” format. It really isn’t. If anything, Modern music production allows the listeners to hear more nuance. At times it’s so clean, that it can become a tad too generic. I suggest you check out Rick Beato’s UA-cam channel if you want to get an understanding of music production of both old and new, and music in general. The mans a genius. Like language, music continues to evolve and change, but the underlying premise is still there. I wonder if you’re starting to see things through rose colored glasses. Thank you for your videos 🤘
No rose colored glasses here. There's a clear movement against brick-wall compressing music. Many of my favorite records have been remastered with this compression and it's not a favorable experience compared to the impact that full dynamics has. Modern recording technology is amazing. That's not the problem. It's the humans that use it that destroy the dynamics that real instruments produce. When I record, I use compression, and on my live show as well. Hell I crush the audio pretty good love, but that's to emulate the sound of radio. Rick has some great stuff. I subbed a while ago. Cheers!
On the back of Mountain's "Climbing" album in print on the bottom is say's "made loud to be played loud". As a teen I figured they wanted me to crank it up. Did I figure right? You might want to use all caps cause i'm hard of hearing now.
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 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.
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.
I don’t know if this has anything to do with compression but I’ve always noticed I have to turn the volume up when playing vinyl to match the volume of another source (tv, digital music, etc). Curious if that is an effect of record companies not being able to make the sound as loud or if that’s not the type of loud you’re referring to
That has more to do with the output level of your cartridge or phone stage. Louder is fine, as long as it's not caused by squashing the sound so it's all one level.
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!
On one hand we're amplifying a strictly acoustic event (the stylus being physically vibrated) This sounds natural, it sounds real. And it is real, it's a real physical event taking place. On the other hand, we're amplifying binary code, some 1's and 0's, it sounds digital and synthetic, and that is exactly what it is. Take an electric guitar, here we're amplifying the actual physical vibrations of the string itself. (again, just like vinyl, you're amplifying an actual acoustic event) Vinyl is as real as an electric guitar played through a Marshall amp. With an acoustic guitar you're also simply amplifying the vibrations of the strings, here the amplification is being carried out by the body of the guitar acoustically. Never the less, vinyl is perfectly comparable to an acoustical instrument. Put your ear down to the cartridge, and you will hear the music being played acoustically, from the stylus riding the groove. 16/44,1 attempting to recreate a 20 khz sine-wave.. The problem becomes, it's only consisting of 1 sample for the positive - and one sample for the negative part of the waveform. Down at 10 khz it has 2 samples per half-wave, and so forth.. This is a square signal, trying to describe complex rounded shapes. Analogue is in it's entirety - A single homogenous, complete and coherent sample, that's what analogue means ( 1 to 1 ) The fact that vinyl sounds natural, while digital sounds synthetic, has nothing to do with the loudness wars old man. Loudness wars only make digital sound worse than it already does...
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
Agreed. You hit all of the important points. Finally someone actually said it correctly. Congrats!
"Air" is such an important thing.
When I play old pressings of records for my friends in their 20s who've never heard vinyl, they're often amazed at the dynamic sounds coming out of the speakers.
Great Video! The answer is for bands to let Steven Wilson handle their mastering/mixing for their vinyl editions of their albums. The man is a genius with sound. He loves vinyl and is meticulous in his vinyl mixes that he does for himself and for other bands.
NOOOOOOO
Ive rarely heard that people prefer his mixes over originals. They are often regarded as good, but I dont hear much more praise than that.
Best insight into the loudness war and vinyl I found so far! Also very fair. Thanks a lot!
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.
Hello, the Yes "Fragile" and the first two Stevie Nicks LP reissues are phenomenal.
My Zeppelin 4 LP sounds like dog poop.
Great to see you making videos, Craig! Keep it up!
I think another major aspect of ‘why the loudness wars’ is the idea that in modern times with digital files, people consume single tracks out of context of the album. Songs are in playlists, shuffled, random etc et. So producers of these files want their single tracks to be louder than other people’s single tracks... in that context. Therefore they try and ‘make their track louder’.
Contrast that with vinyl, the context of that format is to only listen to to the whole side of an album in one sitting. And hence the only comparison, track to track is with other tracks on the album... and therefore no reason to compete with other tracks... they’re all from the same band and therefore can work together across the whole side/album.
Perhaps the iPod triggered the loudness wars, Vinyl doesn’t need to join that fight?
Today its just easier to make Playlist back in the day you ripped the music from vinyl on Tape and then you made a mixtape (maybe for a girl you like)
Ppl don't care about real quality in real music, they just want electronic sounds.
the loudness war started WAY before portable media players, or even portable CD players became widespread.
it was not the iPod that started the loudness war - if anything, it was jukeboxes. good old vinyl jukeboxes even.
the basic principle of a playlist applies to jukeboxes - a bunch of random tracks taken out of context played one after the other.
plus, jukeboxes were typically set to a fixed amplification level not to be changed by the people using the jukebox - so the only way for a label to make their record stand out more than the other records was to increase the perceived loudness (= add more dynamic range compression)
keep em comin' craig.....love these videos man!
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?
Thank you for this video. Watching you talk about this educated me and made me fall in love with music even more than I already am. 2019 to me is all about consuming music the right way (for me).
Me too, Fawaz K.
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.
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! 👍
You make an excellent point. That is why we love music on vinyl, less compression and more dynamics.
Excellent explanation and detail in your video.
You're a good dude. I'm glad to see a new video!
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.
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.
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 UA-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
loved the video again Craig.. more very important information ..
First-class video! Great job!
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 UA-cam videos I also write vinyl is final. Again, thanks for reading my opinions in the previous post.
I feel exceptionally well armed now for my next vinyl vs digital debate. GREAT video!
This is best video I have ever seen on UA-cam. You are so right. Thank you.
Very clear explanation. Thanks!
A complete explanation of how vinyl is a better medium. The graphic compassion between vinyl and a CD was fantastic. Thank you!
Chris S. It’s not necessarily that vinyl is better, it’s how the digital copies are mastered. Some of the best CDs I have were from the beginning of the CD revolution. They were not remastered with all that compression and loudness. The Motown early CDs sound fantastic, although quieter. The new remasters of the Motown catalog sound awful in comparison.
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.
I just subbed, excellent content Craig!
A nice explanation of the Vinyl situation Craig. Keep those videos coming... :D Thanks a lot and 17.....
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.
You hit the nail right on the head with this explanation. I've compared a CD copy and a vinyl copy of the same music some time ago now and the vinyl record sounded "better" even with the pops and clicks because there was more dynamic range in the music. The CD just sounded overwhelmingly loud/the same through out all the tracks.
I have ripped some of my very expensive records to digital FLACs (96Khz/32bit reduce to 24bit) while maintaining the peaks and valleys of the song letting the loudest parts just hit the 0dB mark. When I played back each to my friends and colleagues and challenged them to tell the difference between the vinyl and digital recording, they couldn't. Mind you, I did manually remove the pops and clicks after the fact, but did nothing to reduce the "noise" inherent with vinlys seeing the noise floor is so high.
Keep up the good work!
Amazing video, as usual, thank you
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!
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.
Very well explained!
I really appreciate it that you’re telling it in an open minded and unbiased way, instead of most ppl who like to brag and being snobbish about vinyl.
I saw a comment a while ago from a person who didn't like a new album because it went all quiet then suddenly there was an explosion or loud guitar or vocals. Erm that's called dynamic range and you'd get that if you went to see an orchestra or a live band, (provided the guy at the mixing desk doesn't push all the sliders up to max). We need that variation. It's what makes music sound interesting. It's almost a metaphor for today's lifestyles. Everyone rushing around, wanting everything now and no exceptions!
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.
I really like the detail you put in your videos. I've started a new UA-cam channel also on Vinyl
Seems to me, Most everything has gotten Out of Control!. Grrreat video & content. I thank thee, Craig for all you do...
Thanks man! Great video!
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?
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.
@@gabriel38g 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.
@@gabriel38g Yes. I saw that. Just the same, I am awaiting to hear one of the new disc whe available.
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.
Back in the 1970's AM Radio Stations, in large markets, engaged in loudness wars. The idea was to out shout your competition using heavy audio processing.
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.
“How Vinyl Could Save Music”
Bold statement 😊
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
Finally someone on line who gets it! Thanks for the video.
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.
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!
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.
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...
Still using my Acoustic Research XA since the early 70’s. Had a few Duals 1218 and 1225. Sold them . Vinyl is just a way of life.
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.
Spot on mate
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)
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
Nice point, cheers.
I do enjoy your videos
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.
I have been banging on to people about this for a while now as well..
Modern engineers in the main, seemingly have forgotten the importance of the space on either side of the wave form!!
RENAISSANCE 😊 RENAISSANCE ☺️
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.
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... ;)
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 sounded great in the 80s. Now its very much hit or miss. And the loudness bullshit is the reason for that. If you play a new cd and put an old one in after, you have to turn up the volume. And it sounds just as amazing as a good vinyl. You can see on the cd how much space of the cd is has been used. If the same cd is 50% space as the original press, that is a very big warning sign.
Ok wait... CDs are all recorded at the same bitrate, so it shouldn't matter what the signal is. 60 minutes of whatever will take up the same space as 60 minutes of whatever else. There's no track pitch changes, as with vinyl.
@@VinylTV33 I have no clue about the technology. I just look at the playing surface of cds. A remaster from the 2000s with two bonus songs has an almost identical size playing surface as the 1987 original. But it doesn't have quite the raw sound that one reviewer said would make your flowers die.
that is totally not how audio CDs work.
it is possible to increase the density of an audio CD to a certain degree (i've seen CDs with up to 100 minutes total playtime) and this is done in the same way as it was done to increase play time on vinyl records - just pack the "grooves" tighter together. that could explain why the "used area" on a CD may differ between new and old releases.
however, unlike on vinyl records, a higher density on audio CDs does not mean decreased sound quality.
it is still 44.1 KHz @ 16 bits uncompressed PCM because that is all a standard CD player will understand.
the possibilty that a standard CD player will fail to recognise or play those higher density discs properly might increase if the laser has problems with the tighter spacing of the "grooves" - but you'd notice right away if that happens because dropouts, hangs and read error artifacts that go beyond the CD players error correction capabilities are easy to hear.
that's the thing with digital stuff: it either works 100% or it does not.
there is no degradation of sound quality by the storage media, cables or other parts of the playback chain before the final DAC.
as long as the DAC at the end of the signal chain can still tell a 1 from a 0, you get the exact thing that was put onto that storage media to begin with.
now why does the 2000s remaster sound different from the 1987 original ?
well - because it's a remaster.
that means they did something to the music before pressing it onto CDs again.
if they would just take the same digital master that was used to make the original CDs back in 1987 those new CDs would sound exactly like they did in 1987.
that means if you don't like the sound of the new 2000s remaster you can be angry, say they messed it up for you and stick to the 1987 original if you still have or can still get the 1987 release in good working condition.
@@KenjiTech You just said that how not how it works. Then you said it might be because of that. Today's extreme metal EPs look like early 90s cd singles Yet they are 15 minutes longer. And today extreme metal cds can sound great. And they sound horrible. The double blast bass drums have no bass sound at all is a good example. And it has to be a mastering thing....
"that is not how CDs work" was related to any "degradation" of audio quality at higher track pitch - because that is technically not possible with audio CDs - they either play at 44.1/16 or they don't play at all and the CD player can either handle higher density discs or it can't.
i would not worry too much about what the silver side of a disc looks like (given it is not dirty or damaged) because that tells you nothing important.
if a certain album that only takes up half the space on a CD (= the visible "ring" appears in the middle) would be made to take up almost all of it (so the visible "ring" would be almost at the very edge of the disc) that would not improve anything.
if it sounds bad, it sounded like that the day that final master copy entered the pressing plant.
so yeah ... if anything, the mixing and mastering got worse over the years, not the CD itself as a medium
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.
...a really good point and so true...
Not all music styles lend themselves to dynamics (i.e. most metal styles). However, something that is lost when you heavily compressed the music - and the limiter is really a compressor with an infinite compression ratio - is definition. Part of what makes modern music so fatiguing to listen to is because everything is put at maximum volume, everything becomes aurally humongous to where it just sounds like mush. I know that's how Bob Dylan described a lot of modern music nowadays. This becomes more fatiguing with pop productions, which go for a wall of sound approach and you have to make every single second "exciting". There is only so much "excitement" one can take. To sum up, not all music depends on dynamics to be effective. But I think that nearly all music (maybe even all) music depends on some kind of contrast, whether it's in dynamics or in timbre or any number of things.
Actually, the way I've come to describe this intense loud over the last couple of decades is the "Sam Kinison approach" where HEY! IF YOU LIKED THAT LOUD PART OF THE SONG THAT LAST FOR ONE SECOND, WHY NOT MAKE THE ENTIRE FOUR MINUTES OF A SONG AS LOUD AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE YOU LIKE THAT EXCITEMENT ONCE THEN WHY NOT HAVE THAT OVER 9000 TIMES AS LONG AND THEREFORE IT'S THE MOST EXCITING EXCITING THING EVER IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF EXCITING EXCITING THINGS!!! AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!. Point made =D
Just picked up Metalllica's Death Magnetic on vinyl and it sounds GREAT!!!!!
Compression occurred on lps also. DBX had a dynamic range expander which worked well.
Excellent video, Craig. Vinyl has return to stay for at least a couple hundred centuries. After which we will see what will replace it.
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.
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.
Great video and some modern music has dynamics to it. Prime example is Billie Eilish. Listen to her track called Happier than ever. It goes from a near whisper at the start and builds up to a crazy, distorted crescendo Top notch production. Its great thru headphones where you can hear all the little nuances in the song and stuff going on in the background of it. I mostly buy 60s-70s music on vinyl but there are a few current artists I'll buy vinyl. I listen to vinyl, cassettes, CDs and I also stream newer music off Tidal masters.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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 UA-cam!!
When Apple corps released the 2009 remaster of the stereo version of the Beatles albums they took the CD master and put it to vinyl. Unlike the mono versions of the 2009 remaster to vinyl, they took those albums from the original mono master tapes .
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.
Whatever happened to Pixall roller refills? Why can't I get them anymore?? 😩
I’m a musician, in my 40s, and I really don’t think loudness is an issue. I see it as a stylistic choice like anything else’s. I love listening to records and I am growing my collection, but Not because it’s a “better” format. It really isn’t. If anything, Modern music production allows the listeners to hear more nuance. At times it’s so clean, that it can become a tad too generic.
I suggest you check out Rick Beato’s UA-cam channel if you want to get an understanding of music production of both old and new, and music in general. The mans a genius. Like language, music continues to evolve and change, but the underlying premise is still there. I wonder if you’re starting to see things through rose colored glasses.
Thank you for your videos 🤘
No rose colored glasses here. There's a clear movement against brick-wall compressing music. Many of my favorite records have been remastered with this compression and it's not a favorable experience compared to the impact that full dynamics has. Modern recording technology is amazing. That's not the problem. It's the humans that use it that destroy the dynamics that real instruments produce.
When I record, I use compression, and on my live show as well. Hell I crush the audio pretty good love, but that's to emulate the sound of radio.
Rick has some great stuff. I subbed a while ago. Cheers!
On the back of Mountain's "Climbing" album in print on the bottom is say's "made loud to be played loud". As a teen I figured they wanted me to crank it up. Did I figure right? You might want to use all caps cause i'm hard of hearing now.
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 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.
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.
I don’t know if this has anything to do with compression but I’ve always noticed I have to turn the volume up when playing vinyl to match the volume of another source (tv, digital music, etc). Curious if that is an effect of record companies not being able to make the sound as loud or if that’s not the type of loud you’re referring to
That has more to do with the output level of your cartridge or phone stage. Louder is fine, as long as it's not caused by squashing the sound so it's all one level.
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!
I love your shirt! Where can I buy one!? Cheers
On one hand we're amplifying a strictly acoustic event (the stylus being physically vibrated)
This sounds natural, it sounds real. And it is real, it's a real physical event taking place.
On the other hand, we're amplifying binary code, some 1's and 0's, it sounds digital and synthetic, and that is exactly what it is.
Take an electric guitar, here we're amplifying the actual physical vibrations of the string itself. (again, just like vinyl, you're amplifying an actual acoustic event)
Vinyl is as real as an electric guitar played through a Marshall amp.
With an acoustic guitar you're also simply amplifying the vibrations of the strings, here the amplification is being carried out by the body of the guitar acoustically.
Never the less, vinyl is perfectly comparable to an acoustical instrument.
Put your ear down to the cartridge, and you will hear the music being played acoustically, from the stylus riding the groove.
16/44,1 attempting to recreate a 20 khz sine-wave.. The problem becomes, it's only consisting of 1 sample for the positive - and one sample for the negative part of the waveform. Down at 10 khz it has 2 samples per half-wave, and so forth..
This is a square signal, trying to describe complex rounded shapes.
Analogue is in it's entirety - A single homogenous, complete and coherent sample, that's what analogue means ( 1 to 1 )
The fact that vinyl sounds natural, while digital sounds synthetic, has nothing to do with the loudness wars old man.
Loudness wars only make digital sound worse than it already does...
You told me things that I never knew.
well spoken sir :-) I totally agree. BUT where did you buy that awsome shirt :-D?