Does audiophile equal quiet?

[magiccarpetride]

*Note*: I'm crossposting this on other forums; apologies for being idiotically redundant. Here it goes anyway: *End Note*

I'm getting deeply drawn into the so-called high definition digital format (typically 24 bit/96 kHz), so I'm constantly shopping around for such material. There seem to be more and more of the high-end virtual stores getting into the high def game, which excites me to no end.

However, one strange thing that I've noticed is that a lot of the esoteric high-end material that is being offered (often times with a lot of accompanying verbiage praising the ultra sophisticated recording equipment and techniques), tends to sound super quiet. One of the more recent examples is some tracks I've downloaded from http://www.lessloss.com -- the playback is barely audible. I'd say it's probably three to five times quieter than most other music I play.

What's the reason for this? Why can't they offer these tracks at normal volumes? I don't feel like getting up and cranking the volume on my pre amp, just so that I can actually hear what is being played.

Also, on many of these ultra esoteric highest imaginable quality tracks (if one were to believe the sales pitch), I fail to detect any special sonic qualities. For example, on the "Steinway & Sons grand piano recording" page (http://www.lessloss.com/steinway-sons-grand-piano-recording-p-202.html), they claim things such as (and I'm quoting verbatim):

"In Excerpt #1, notice at 50 seconds how the harmonics of the sustained strings remain true to the nature of the piano's natural sound, even when suspended this long. Notice the sound of the pedal action and the beauty of the wood sound of the hammers' action. And, at 2'50", notice how dead-on the harmonic content of the suspended strings is, with no artificial wavering or high frequency fluctuation. The recording seems as stable as the grand piano is heavy. Nobody would dare say that this recording sounds "digital" in the derogatory sense of the word."

Listening to it as hard as I might, I fail to detect anything special. It feels like going to a posh restaurant and reading the blurb on the menu that is extolling the virtues of the unreasonably expensive meal you're about to eat, and then when the meal arrives, it turns out to be bland, tasteless, and a big let down.

Now, I do have a number of other high definition piano recordings that are so freakishly realistic sounding that it'll rip your head off, but no such magic here.

So what am I missing? Or, am I missing anything? I've noticed the same unsubstantiated hoopla with other vendors, such as Chesky Records, for example. Their much ballyhooed superior recording and mastering sessions always leave me wanting MORE sound. It all sounds super wimpy and anemic.

Or, maybe it is that I'm lost for the ultra rarefied and refined world of super-human esoteric high end of audiophilia?

[DSJR]

It's called lack of compression dear boy :lol:

Often, true dynamic range is compressed on recording (analogue or digital, it doesn't matter) to give the sound more "punch." Drum kits suffer hugely in this and so do many vocalists and it's the art of a great recording engineer/producer to make the sound impressive without it appearing squashed out of all existance. "Audiophile" recordings may have a low mean level allowing for perfect recording of transients, which may only come along from time to time depending on the music. In the early days of CD, when digital editing devices were audible, levels were kept as safe as possible, but many of the decently remastered CD's (red book anyway) are able to bring the levels up safely with no audible constriction at all (yes, I do know that some remasterings are horrid, as copious compression is used to get the levels too high). The best way to hear this is FM radio, where Radio 1 and 2 have huge and devastating levels of compression quite often, but Radio 4 doesn't (or didn't) and so sounds quieter. Also, compare Radio 3 most times with Classic FM for similar radical level differences.

If you understand what I'm trying to say, maybe this is what you're finding, although you'd need a wave editor of some kind to confirm the peaks.

[Reid Malenfant]

<snip> The best way to hear this is FM radio, where Radio 1 and 2 have huge and devastating levels of compression quite often, but Radio 4 doesn't (or didn't) and so sounds quieter. Also, compare Radio 3 most times with Classic FM for similar radical level differences.

Definately agree, that so called "optimod" they use is a bag of s***e ;) It's all because they are catering for people in cars & need the compressed dynamic range so people can hear the quiet bits whilst mobile :steam:

[DSJR]

You know mark, I don't think people need all that compression in cars any more, as cars are generally more refined and quieter these days than they were thirty years ago when this became serious. car stereo's are also of higher sonic quality then back then as well and many have CD players in (even my ghastly Focus 6006e of which the multi-CD player has packed up!).

A good few years ago, my now ex-BBC engineer mate was responsible with his team for refurbing some of the setups and studios at Broadcasting House. The offices needed a radio feed, so a load of Wharfedale Active-Diamonds were bought, the one with amps used (the other passive ones were disposed of to staff I understand) and the sonic feed taken from the post Optimod patch bay. The staff complained the sound was bad, so they took the feed *before* the Optimod.. With their cr@p glass-walled studios now, it probably doesn't matter, but it's been a few years since he left (early nineties from memory) so I don't know what goes on now.

[magiccarpetride]

It's called lack of compression dear boy :lol:

Often, true dynamic range is compressed on recording (analogue or digital, it doesn't matter) to give the sound more "punch." Drum kits suffer hugely in this and so do many vocalists and it's the art of a great recording engineer/producer to make the sound impressive without it appearing squashed out of all existance. "Audiophile" recordings may have a low mean level allowing for perfect recording of transients, which may only come along from time to time depending on the music. In the early days of CD, when digital editing devices were audible, levels were kept as safe as possible, but many of the decently remastered CD's (red book anyway) are able to bring the levels up safely with no audible constriction at all (yes, I do know that some remasterings are horrid, as copious compression is used to get the levels too high). The best way to hear this is FM radio, where Radio 1 and 2 have huge and devastating levels of compression quite often, but Radio 4 doesn't (or didn't) and so sounds quieter. Also, compare Radio 3 most times with Classic FM for similar radical level differences.

If you understand what I'm trying to say, maybe this is what you're finding, although you'd need a wave editor of some kind to confirm the peaks.

No, I know about that, and also I did mention that I'm comparing the loudness of these tracks with the loudness of other uncompressed, unlimited tracks (such as Paul McCartney's uncompressed/unlimited high definition remaster of "Band on the Run"). McCartney still sounds five times louder. So the absence of compression and limiting doesn't explain this phenomenon.

[Welder]

Oh really?
So why is it then that I could leave the volume control on my amp set at the same position for vinyl and CD replay and get approximately the same amount of decibels?
You’re not going to tell me that the vinyl was compressed as well are you…….:doh:

But, but, I thought one of the reasons vinyl was far superior to CD was because the music didn’t have all that nasty compression………………………..or is that just half a dozen albums from the `1950’s ;)

[magiccarpetride]

Oh really?
So why is it then that I could leave the volume control on my amp set at the same position for vinyl and CD replay and get approximately the same amount of decibels?
You’re not going to tell me that the vinyl was compressed as well are you…….:doh:

But, but, I thought one of the reasons vinyl was far superior to CD was because the music didn’t have all that nasty compression………………………..or is that just half a dozen albums from the `1950’s ;)

God help me if I have a clue what you're talking about...

[Welder]

Alex.

No worries mate, if i dont make sense best to ignore me ;)

But, to clarify.

The reason for the difference in loudness given above is lack of compression on the hi res tracks.
Apparently vinyl doesn’t get compressed according to some. I think the vast majority of vinyl gets the same compression that CD’s do.

I agree with you in your findings concerning hi res material. A lot of it does seem to need considerably more volume to reach normal listening level.
I don’t know what the answer is despite running a few tracks through a frequency analyzer. It’s one of those things I would also like a definitive answer to.

[technobear]

Listening to it as hard as I might, I fail to detect anything special.

Is it possible that your kit isn't the 'best possible' ? :scratch:

[magiccarpetride]

Is it possible that your kit isn't the 'best possible' ? :scratch:

That's not possible.

[Ali Tait]

If you are talking about new recordings that have been made especially for hi rez, it may be that they have deliberately been recorded at a low level in order to give the widest possible dynamic range.

[technobear]

That's not possible.

Hmmm! Are you still using the Squeezebox Duet?

Time to upgrade to a Touch - or even better a Transporter.

Then come back and tell us what you hear :eyebrows:

[John]

Why or why so do we still get confussed between loud and dynamic
http://www.turnmeup.org/

[magiccarpetride]

Hmmm! Are you still using the Squeezebox Duet?

Time to upgrade to a Touch - or even better a Transporter.

Then come back and tell us what you hear :eyebrows:

I've upgraded to Touch long time ago. The improvements in sound quality were nothing short of staggering. Some folks claim that if I now upgrade my Caiman with the Gator board, it'll be yet another quantum leap.

So, right now with Touch into the well burnt-in Caiman and then into DPA 200s separates feeding the ever-so-hungry Magnepan planar speakers, I'm very disappointed with some of the so-called ultra high fidelity audiophile recordings. They sound like shit compared to almost any of the run-of-the-mill recordings.

[magiccarpetride]

If you are talking about new recordings that have been made especially for hi rez, it may be that they have deliberately been recorded at a low level in order to give the widest possible dynamic range.

This is undeniably true. But my point is that just because you track something at a low level in order to preserve large enough headroom, that doesn't mean that you must master it at the low volumes. Once you're done with recording, it is clear what the recorded dynamic range is, and at that point you can mix it down and master it accordingly. What I'm pointing at here is lousy mastering. There's absolutely no need to insist that the master stays quiet.

[Reid Malenfant]

This is undeniably true. But my point is that just because you track something at a low level in order to preserve large enough headroom, that doesn't mean that you must master it at the low volumes. Once you're done with recording, it is clear what the recorded dynamic range is, and at that point you can mix it down and master it accordingly. What I'm pointing at here is lousy mastering. There's absolutely no need to insist that the master stays quiet.
Do you understand about dynamic range Alex?

Ok lets say you record a live performance of an ochestra for instance & you use 24/96 recording equipment :)

At some point during the performance the will be a point with the loudest volume. If this happens to be 20Db above the average (which is in no way uncommon) then you'll need to have the recording equipment set so it doesn't clip on the peak ;)

This 20Db difference in volume is equivalent to 100W when the normal listening level demands just a single Watt (1W).

Now i don't know about you, but if you are going to mess this about & alter the peak so that it's not as high & thus the average volume is now higher i'd hardly call this high resolution - i'd call it a massacre :eyebrows:

With 24 bit audio there are 256 times as much information available in bits. Instead of 2^16 you have 2^24 so even though this 20Db peak i mentioned might cause the general volume of the performance to be lower than average the voltage level is on average 1 tenth as much. This still leaves a fantastic amount more bits available than 16 bit audio...

What i'm trying to say to you is if you don't like it then turn up the volume :eyebrows: But be prepared for your amplifier to clip that 20Db peak unless of course you are using something like a Krell FPB750...

You wanted top quality recordings, the result is you do now have a vastly increased dynamic range simply because it's high quality & not compressed to buggary.

[John]

+1 Turn up the F-----g volume man;)
Mark has a good point there is a good chance your amp might clip with those speakers of yours

[DSJR]

Others in the recent past have been slated for saying this, but other engineers I know have said that in conventional systems, we need one Watt for average and 1KW for peaks ideally in a perfect world. The people firmly following this ideal just can't understand low powered valve gear, let alone SET devices, as in their opinion, they'd be clipping a lot of the time. I don't feel this way, by the way and definitely advocate motre efficient speakers if possible and if a natural balance isn't sacrificed.

Alex, a Gator, IMO, would be a very valid improvent if the Caiman is driving your power amps directly. Hopefully, the sound should be "stronger" and lower level recordings won't sound so "lost" I reckon. By the way, those Beatles recordings we've been discussing did have a tiny bit of limiting here and there. I can't speak for modern recordings, but twenty five years ago, we just didn't have good enough digital editors to play around with levels once the signal was in the digital domain.

[Welder]

Can’t argue with any of what you write Mark but a number of so called hi def tracks I’ve looked at don’t use anything like the headroom allowed. It’s almost as if the engineer is expecting some massive peak that doesn’t actually appear. In this respect I have to agree with Alex, its just plain bad mastering.
Unfortunately, as you write, listening to such cautious engineering at normal decibel can and probably will drive the average domestic amp into clipping so just turning hi res up isn’t a lot of good.

Yet one more reason for Redbook; most domestic equipment can cope with it. As for 24/192, well one must wonder what sort of amp is going to pump that at listenable volume without clipping never mind the processing power needed.

[magiccarpetride]

Do you understand about dynamic range Alex?

Ok lets say you record a live performance of an ochestra for instance & you use 24/96 recording equipment :)

At some point during the performance the will be a point with the loudest volume. If this happens to be 20Db above the average (which is in no way uncommon) then you'll need to have the recording equipment set so it doesn't clip on the peak ;)

This 20Db difference in volume is equivalent to 100W when the normal listening level demands just a single Watt (1W).

Now i don't know about you, but if you are going to mess this about & alter the peak so that it's not as high & thus the average volume is now higher i'd hardly call this high resolution - i'd call it a massacre :eyebrows:

With 24 bit audio there are 256 times as much information available in bits. Instead of 2^16 you have 2^24 so even though this 20Db peak i mentioned might cause the general volume of the performance to be lower than average the voltage level is on average 1 tenth as much. This still leaves a fantastic amount more bits available than 16 bit audio...

What i'm trying to say to you is if you don't like it then turn up the volume :eyebrows: But be prepared for your amplifier to clip that 20Db peak unless of course you are using something like a Krell FPB750...

You wanted top quality recordings, the result is you do now have a vastly increased dynamic range simply because it's high quality & not compressed to buggary.

All of this holds true if we're talking about recordings that indeed capture huge dynamic ranges. But these are far and in between. If, on the other hand, we're talking about a recording where someone is using brushes to gently caress the snare drum, while the guitarist is ever so sensually touching his guitar strings, what's the point in preserving so much headroom? The crescendo never happens, and that fact should be plainly obvious if the mastering engineers examine the resulting soundwaves.

Most recordings I've ever heard are confined to a pretty narrow dynamic bandwidth, and so the above math that you've exposed ends up being false math.

[magiccarpetride]

+1 Turn up the F-----g volume man;)
Mark has a good point there is a good chance your amp might clip with those speakers of yours

I'd rather load the offending track into Audacity and apply the amplify effect. Same difference, more convenient in the long run for me and for my system.

But my beef is: why are those retarded mastering engineers forcing me to go through this unnecessary doctoring the tracks via Audacity step?

[Reid Malenfant]

I have made my point, if you don't like it there isn't a lot i can do.

I agree that if the full dynamic range isn't used they the guy recording it needs a kick in the balls :eyebrows:

I have plenty of CDs here that have massive peaks on them, you must be listening to the wrong kind of music. In all honesty The Beatles is after all pop music & as such the dynamic range won't be that great, it was all about screaming girls after all :eyebrows:

[Welder]

“I have plenty of CDs here that have massive peaks on them, you must be listening to the wrong kind of music. In all honesty The Beatles is after all pop music & as such the dynamic range won't be that great, it was all about screaming girls after all”

Awww, way to wicked :doh::lolsign:

[magiccarpetride]

I have plenty of CDs here that have massive peaks on them, you must be listening to the wrong kind of music.

Finally, the day has arrived in my life when somebody's gonna teach me what is the right kind of music. Please explain this to me, o enlightened master. What is the wrong kind of music, and what is the right kind of music, and how do I go about making a surefire distinction between the two?

(I'm so excited to hear what the answer's going to be:)

[Reid Malenfant]

Are you trying to tell me that The Beatles isn't pop music?

All pop (popular) music tends to be made with volume levels that tend to be within 10Db of nominal. I'm not really into pop at all, i guess i drifted away from it in the early 80s & gradually moved further away since.

Most of my listening these days is to electronic ambient music which is about as far from pop as you can get. This isn't catering for a "mass market" & tends to be much better recorded with a vastly bigger dynamic range.

Unfortunately due to the type of music you tend to listen to you'll have to put up with the production techniques used, just the same as i do :eyebrows:

[Ali Tait]

Others in the recent past have been slated for saying this, but other enginpeers I know have said that in conventional systems, we need one Watt for average and 1KW for peaks ideally in a perfect world. The people firmly following this ideal just can't understand low powered valve gear, let alone SET devices, as in their opinion, they'd be clipping a lot of the time. I don't feel this way, by the way and definitely advocate motre efficient speakers if possible and if a natural balance isn't sacrificed.

Alex, a Gator, IMO, would be a very valid improvent if the Caiman is driving your power amps directly. Hopefully, the sound should be "stronger" and lower level recordings won't sound so "lost" I reckon. By the way, those Beatles recordings we've been discussing did have a tiny bit of limiting here and there. I can't speak for modern recordings, but twenty five years ago, we just didn't have good enough digital editors to play around with levels once the signal was in the digital domain.

You have a point Dave, but it doesn't allow for speaker sensitivity. Less than one watt is more than enough if your speakers are efficient enough. I know because I've heard it myself- a spud amp driving a pair of Sachikos. We had to retreat about 15 meters away from the speakers,such was the volume produced. The amp was outputting all of 0.75 w/ch.

[magiccarpetride]

Are you trying to tell me that The Beatles isn't pop music?

All pop (popular) music tends to be made with volume levels that tend to be within 10Db of nominal. I'm not really into pop at all, i guess i drifted away from it in the early 80s & gradually moved further away since.

Most of my listening these days is to electronic ambient music which is about as far from pop as you can get. This isn't catering for a "mass market" & tends to be much better recorded with a vastly bigger dynamic range.

Unfortunately due to the type of music you tend to listen to you'll have to put up with the production techniques used, just the same as i do :eyebrows:

One of my favorite albums of all time is Bill Laswell's "Asana", especially the opening track "Devata". Now, if you claim that is pop music, I would have no problem with that (I firmly believe that his music should be widely popular, not sure why it isn't), however it is a gorgeously recorded and produced piece of music with seemingly infinite layers of sound textures and kick ass dynamics -- the sounds literally leap out of my Maggies and hurl towards the listener. And yet, the track is not even one sliver quieter sounding than any of the moronic loudness wars drivel that's playing on radio these days.

So, in my opinion, it is possible to cut a very dynamic, lively and realistically sounding track without having to make it sound quieter than the radio-worthy material.

[John]

It depends on what you listening too. Say something like Rodrigo Y Gabriella can sound very dynamic but basically because just two acoustic guitars its easier to push up the volume levels without it really affecting sound quality.
Mark and Ali are right to get real scale as opposed to loudness (they are different) you need a system that got plenty of headroom. You can do this via powerful amps driving difficult loads or efficient speakers
If your system is clipping when pushing up the volume this would suggest that you have not yet got this balance quite right, or are you just not willing to turn up the volume control?

[magiccarpetride]

If your system is clipping when pushing up the volume this would suggest that you have not yet got this balance quite right, or are you just not willing to turn up the volume control?

Yeah, I just find it inconvenient and annoying to have to get up and walk up to the pre amp and twiddle with the volume control.

[magiccarpetride]

Are you trying to tell me that The Beatles isn't pop music?

Well, if you're talking about the Beatles who recorded "Revolution 9", how's that pop music? Also, if I'm not mistaken, it's the same band who recorded "A Day In The Life", which, in case you haven't heard it yet, contains some of the wildest orchestral crescendos ever recorded. That's some wild-ass dynamics, eh?

[Stratmangler]

Yeah, I just find it inconvenient and annoying to have to get up and walk up to the pre amp and twiddle with the volume control.

If you have replaygain tags on your files then you can set SBS to use them.
I use it occasionally when I set my SB3 to play a random selection.

[magiccarpetride]

If you have replaygain tags on your files then you can set SBS to use them.
I use it occasionally when I set my SB3 to play a random selection.

Does it mess with the sound quality? I have disabled the attenuation on my Squeezebox, since it compromises the bit-perfect signal.

[Ali Tait]

No it doesn't, as long as you keep the volume above about 70%.

[Stratmangler]

Does it mess with the sound quality? I have disabled the attenuation on my Squeezebox, since it compromises the bit-perfect signal.

Not as far as I've noticed.
That said, if I'm playing a random mix then it's usually there for background sound.
If I'm listening intently I turn off replaygain and use the amplifier remote control, but then it's normally albums straight through, and it's rare I need to change volume once it's set.

[magiccarpetride]

Not as far as I've noticed.
That said, if I'm playing a random mix then it's usually there for background sound.
If I'm listening intently I turn off replaygain and use the amplifier remote control, but then it's normally albums straight through, and it's rare I need to change volume once it's set.

Gotcha! I've noticed that the sound quality improves if I use the digital transport only as that -- a digital transport. I disable any other features (including the on-the-fly conversion from FLAC to PCM). That way, the sound remains rock solid, since the Touch is not asked to do any heavy lifting.

As soon as I switch back to enforcing the Touch to do any extra processing while transporting digital bits to the Caiman, I immediately notice how the sound gets slightly out of focus (akin to mildly compressed mp3), which irks me to no end.