Ah but our ears work on the inverse square law which means that small changes are not noticeable only large changes are.
Printable View
That fact always intrigues me...
Whilst what you're saying is technically correct, I can't think off-hand of any identical recordings of music I own both on vinyl and CD, where the bass on the CD version is audibly superior to that on the vinyl version - in fact, it's often the other way round!
For example, the bass on some of my 12" dance music singles is positively seismic, and in a way that I've never heard from any CD... Therefore, I can only assume it's one of these strange phenomena that, whilst true, don't translate into real-world listening :)
Marco.
Yep so when mixing these fab dance tracks you reduce the level of all the other sounds so that you can keep the bass right up there. Or you use a compressor.
Well put it this way, if you took a recording and mastered it for CD with the maximum dynamic range possible, then did the same for vinyl, the cd would have a much higher dynamic range. But there are two factors here:
1) very few masterings fully exploit the potential dynamic range of CD
2) What you subjectively perceive as 'dynamics' when listening is not actually dynamic range or dynamic swing. The problem here is one of language, what we mean in casual conversation when using the word 'dynamic' is not the same as the actual meaning of the word when applied to a recording. Heavily compressed recordings can sound subjectively 'dynamic' and recordings that do have a good dynamic range can sound 'undynamic' as with the Roger water's album discussed above.
With the Brand X album my guess is that it has a far wider dynamic range on CD than vinyl, but this will actually lead to you listening to it at a lower volume since the peaks will go very loud compared to the quiet bits.
Trouble is we tend to use the word 'dynamic' to describe recordings that are 'punchy' and give an impression of weight and power to the sound. But these things have nothing to do with the dynamic range, in fact applying compression will actually exaggerate these effects, one of the reasons many masterings are heavily compresed.
Looking it up on the DRDB it is indeed a relatively uncompressed master on CD http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/li...brand+x&album=
The Brand X album I am referring to is perhaps not really a suitable argument as my vinyl copy is a 1978 original pressing whereas the CD is a few decades later. The CD is flat and lifeless with less resolution of detail whereas the vinyl has the most gorgeous quite drum passages set against some raucously loud sections. Bloody stunning album.
But, as Martin says, bass dynamics are automatically limited *at source* on all vinyl recordings, so how can any method or device, employed later in the chain, retrieve that missing bass?
Bass however, which I've already said, to my ears, isn't audibly missing...
Marco.