DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
Dream Theater => Dream Theater => Topic started by: jamesfernando on February 07, 2015, 11:41:47 AM
-
I'll let the picture speak for itself. Both versions have been converted to 320 kbps mp3, yet the difference is still night and day.
(https://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff225/jrf_photo/The%20Bigger%20Picture%20HD%20vs%20Release_zpsu6ebzwn6.png)
-
What is the graph measuring exactly?
-
The difference is heard, especially on the drums, even though the individual tracks still sound very compressed.
I can't see the reason why the CD doesn't have that master, but i can see the trend continuing on the next album.
-
I think the CD should have that mix too.
-
This is why I only ever keep MP3s of the HDTracks versions (of the last four albums) on my iPod, Phone, work computer, laptop...anywhere, really. They sound SO much better and aren't brickwalled to hell and back.
I really wish they'd get the pre-RR albums, but I won't hold my breath for it.
-Marc.
-
Yeah, HDtracks is the best. I have several albums (by other artists than DT) in HDtracks format and they really sound better than the CD master.
-
As a general comment though, I think people assign too much deductive power to simple visual inspection of the waveform. You can have a completely rectangular waveform, and it can still be fine. The loudness war happens mostly in the frequency space, where specific subbands are compressed. That you can't infer from those waveforms. Or rather, it only lets you spot the worst offenders.
-
What is the graph measuring exactly?
volume over time (left and right channels ordered vertically).
it's crazy how much more powerful and clear the band sound in the HDTracks version. although it brings out the super fake-sounding snare sample even more.
-
That was my experience with HDTracks. Everything sounds better, but the snare sounds even worse and more out of place. Just a completely botched job, DT12 was. Not like chocolate cake at all :(
-
As a general comment though, I think people assign too much deductive power to simple visual inspection of the waveform. You can have a completely rectangular waveform, and it can still be fine. The loudness war happens mostly in the frequency space, where specific subbands are compressed. That you can't infer from those waveforms. Or rather, it only lets you spot the worst offenders.
You can definitely tell how compressed music is from the waveform. It doesn't tell you which band is compressed, but it will still show up regardless of frequency. All music looks like a block if you zoom out far enough, but the difference if you zoom in is obvious. If something looks like a solid rectangle of noise zoomed in, it will not sound dynamic.
But I agree that inspecting the waveform isn't the be-all of judging how it will sound, nor is the DR number, because that doesn't take into account the factor of which band the compression is occurring.
-
Most of FII looks like a rectangle too, but it still sounds pretty good. You have to use your ears aswell as your eyes.
-
Most of FII looks like a rectangle too, but it still sounds pretty good. You have to use your ears aswell as your eyes.
If you're viewing the whole song at once yes, but zoomed in it looks better. That album doesn't have a major compression issue, but does have a bit of a clipping issue, that is visible when zoomed in. The bass drum clips off, which creates some flat peaks.
The waveform is only useful as supporting evidence in conjunction with using your ear and knowing what you're hearing.
-
I've never tried HD tracks but I'm thinking of getting DT12. I've seen some great visual comparisons and testimonials but the small audio samples on the website don't give me much to go on.
But first, can someone tell me if the guitar riff in the beginning of Illumination Theory is clear? It starts at about 1:20. The first time it's played only in the left channel and it's extremely difficult to hear the notes and it's only when the right channel comes in at about 1:28 that I can hear clearly. It's not so noticable in my car but through headphones it's barf.
This info will determine for me if I should spend the $20 or not cuz if it's still barf in the left channel like the CD then I can't justify the purchase.
-
That riff in the left speaker isn't super clear regardless because it's during the fadeout of the previous section and it has a muffled tone, but it doesn't have any of the clipping crackle that the CD version has. Not sure if that's at all helpful.
-
The waveform is only useful as supporting evidence in conjunction with using your ear and knowing what you're hearing.
Well said.
-
Or rather, it only lets you spot the worst offenders.
Pretty much, yep. I mean, it is a useful indicator, but as Blob says it should only be used in conjunction with your ears.
Yeah, HDtracks is the best. I have several albums (by other artists than DT) in HDtracks format and they really sound better than the CD master.
Ooh what other ones? I've heard comments that a lot of what is on there is the same master and therefore pointless because our ears can't actually make out the additional definition. But if there are others that are better masters then I could be interested.
-
Yeah, HDtracks is the best. I have several albums (by other artists than DT) in HDtracks format and they really sound better than the CD master.
Ooh what other ones? I've heard comments that a lot of what is on there is the same master and therefore pointless because our ears can't actually make out the additional definition. But if there are others that are better masters then I could be interested.
The one that pops to mind first is Metallica's black album. I can hear stuff on there that I didn't realise was in there (buried in the mix?), the overall sound is clearer and the bass has more punch.
Some Rush albums sound a little better too (like A Farewell To Kings, 2112, and Power Windows).
I don't know if it's the same masters or not, they sound better to my ears any way :P
-
You really need to research a bit before you buy stuff from HDTracks. Sometimes what they have is more dynamic than the CD and sounds great (like the DT albums), sometimes it's an identical master to the CD (and therefore a mostly worthless purchase), and unfortunately sometimes their downloads are actually a new master that is compressed more than the original CD.
-
I have to say that besides DT12, BC&SL and SC sound much better on the HDTracks versions, there is much more breathing room, and the drums seem to have more natural punch and less clipping.
-
Or rather, it only lets you spot the worst offenders.
Pretty much, yep. I mean, it is a useful indicator, but as Blob says it should only be used in conjunction with your ears.
Yeah, HDtracks is the best. I have several albums (by other artists than DT) in HDtracks format and they really sound better than the CD master.
Ooh what other ones? I've heard comments that a lot of what is on there is the same master and therefore pointless because our ears can't actually make out the additional definition. But if there are others that are better masters then I could be interested.
I'm not sure about all bands, but for DT's case, you're not getting albums that merely have additional definition. You're actually getting albums that seem mastered differently. You can very easily hear the difference.
-
Yeah, HDtracks is the best. I have several albums (by other artists than DT) in HDtracks format and they really sound better than the CD master.
Ooh what other ones? I've heard comments that a lot of what is on there is the same master and therefore pointless because our ears can't actually make out the additional definition. But if there are others that are better masters then I could be interested.
The one that pops to mind first is Metallica's black album. I can hear stuff on there that I didn't realise was in there (buried in the mix?), the overall sound is clearer and the bass has more punch.
Some Rush albums sound a little better too (like A Farewell To Kings, 2112, and Power Windows).
I don't know if it's the same masters or not, they sound better to my ears any way :P
The Black Album is very dynamic to begin with. I've actually heard some complaints about the HDTracks version using a different mix with some additional effects on solos or something like that.
There are plenty of albums I'd buy in an instant if I knew they were better masters, but they'd all be more recent albums, from the 21st century.
-
I've actually heard some complaints about the HDTracks version using a different mix with some additional effects on solos or something like that.
That could very well be the case.
-
Or rather, it only lets you spot the worst offenders.
Pretty much, yep. I mean, it is a useful indicator, but as Blob says it should only be used in conjunction with your ears.
Yeah, HDtracks is the best. I have several albums (by other artists than DT) in HDtracks format and they really sound better than the CD master.
Ooh what other ones? I've heard comments that a lot of what is on there is the same master and therefore pointless because our ears can't actually make out the additional definition. But if there are others that are better masters then I could be interested.
I'm not sure about all bands, but for DT's case, you're not getting albums that merely have additional definition. You're actually getting albums that seem mastered differently. You can very easily hear the difference.
Yeah I have all the DT ones, because I knew about the mastering difference. I was just interested in whether there were other ones out there with a vastly superior master.
As I said in another thread recently, I definitely won't be getting the new DT album until I know what's going on sound-wise across the various sources.
-
That riff in the left speaker isn't super clear regardless because it's during the fadeout of the previous section and it has a muffled tone, but it doesn't have any of the clipping crackle that the CD version has. Not sure if that's at all helpful.
Yep, it is, thanks.
So what's the general consensus about DT12HD? Yay or nay? If I'm going to start somewhere this would be the one.
-
Yay. Especially if you want to hear the cymbals. :p
-
So what's the general consensus about DT12HD? Yay or nay? If I'm going to start somewhere this would be the one.
I don't think anyone has ever posted saying that they prefer the CD over HDTracks.
-
Nobody has said that, of course, but nobody has said "dayuuuuuum DT12HD is da shiz, yo" either.
Screw, I'm gonna get DT12HD tonight and check it out. Worst case I'm out $20. I'll let you guys know what I think in a few days.
-
So what's the general consensus about DT12HD? Yay or nay? If I'm going to start somewhere this would be the one.
I don't think anyone has ever posted saying that they prefer the CD over HDTracks.
I haven't come across one example where the HDTracks version is not better than the CD.
-
What the hell, man, I bought it but their download manager isn't working for me and I've re-installed Java and even Quicktime and the 'download manager' still won't launch.
I feel like it's 1999 and I'm fudging everything just trying to get it to work. Why they don't just send an email with a secure link to download my purchase is ridiculous.
I've contacted support but I'm really cheesed right now. There's NO WAY it should be this difficult, in 2015, to get this to work without problems.
>:(
-
Hmmm. Never encountered a problem with an HD Tracks purchase before.
-
I've been told I can't buy because i'm in the UK.
-
So, which is the CD and which the HDTracks⸮
I've been told I can't buy because i'm in the UK.
Yeah. I'd love to buy HDTracks releases, but they won't let me. Unless they fix their licensing stuff, I won't go near that site and just download the releases elsewhere...
-
There are browser addons that changes the proxy so you can access stuff from other countries. Hola Better Internet is the one I use for Chrome.
-
Thats what I use to get Netflix US
-
I've said it before along with many others, but HD Tracks vastly improve DT12. It's great stuff. :)
I also snagged HD Tracks of ADTOE, Black Clouds, and SC just for fun. Satisfied indeed.
-
I would say that it's definitely worth it for SC and DT12 at least. BCSL and ADTOE are also definitely less loud as well, but I didn't have problems with the original masters of those two, unlike SC and DT12. Depends on your mileage, but I definitely recommend SC and DT12.
-
What kind of stereo system does everyone have to listen to these HD tracks on? I'm wondering if my current setup would suffice.
-
What kind of stereo system does everyone have to listen to these HD tracks on? I'm wondering if my current setup would suffice.
I listen to all my music on the PC, so a decent soundcard and good headphones does it for me. Nothing fancy.
-
What kind of stereo system does everyone have to listen to these HD tracks on? I'm wondering if my current setup would suffice.
I listen to all my music on the PC, so a decent soundcard and good headphones does it for me. Nothing fancy.
I was reading that some people use a DAC which is good if you have a bad soundcard.
-
What kind of stereo system does everyone have to listen to these HD tracks on? I'm wondering if my current setup would suffice.
You'll notice improvements regardless of your setup
-
Thanks to Kotowboy for helping me out with this.
They actually ended up sending me an email link with a direct download of their "Download Manager" software which worked quickly and flawlessly. Why they don't just do that in the first place.
:facepalm:
-
:tup
-
What kind of stereo system does everyone have to listen to these HD tracks on? I'm wondering if my current setup would suffice.
You'll notice improvements regardless of your setup
Thanks. I have a decent stereo setup so I'm sure it will sound pretty good. :D
-
You can definitely hear more cymbals in the HD version and the snare doesn't sound like it's wrapped in a blanket quite so much.
-
I guess the only thing I have to be concerned about is if the disc player in my stereo can play FLAC or WAV files.
-
Even if you need to convert it to MP3 320, it'll still be much better than the CD.
-
I guess the only thing I have to be concerned about is if the disc player in my stereo can play FLAC or WAV files.
Do you intend to burn the files to create a regular audio CD? Because if so, all audio CDs contain the same type of audio data (16 bit 44.1kHz PCM wave) so yes it will work. But you might need to convert the high-res files into this format first, because most disc burning programs probably won't like the high-res files.
-
I wouldn't have to convert them to anything. I am assuming I can just put them on a DVD and play the wav or flac file if my player can handle the format. Or I can connect my laptop to my television with an HDMI cable and play it through the stereo setup that way.
-
You can convert them down to any number of formats. Or you can just play them outright if you have the appropriate player. The thing is that if you're not a complete audiophile, you're not buying them for the format. You're buying them for the master, which is totally different than on the CD.
-
You can convert them down to any number of formats. Or you can just play them outright if you have the appropriate player. The thing is that if you're not a complete audiophile, you're not buying them for the format. You're buying them for the master, which is totally different than on the CD.
I'm really curious to hear the tracks the way they were meant to be heard. So keeping them as close to the master is a priority for me.
-
Had too much spare time today (snowed in once again), so I wrote a small script that detects hard-clipping in wave files. Ran it over DT12, and probably not too surprising, it found a ton of clips. This one is from TBP, right before "would you talk me off the ledge":
(https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/rumborak/dt_clip_zps8f5d08b2.png)
That's a solid 10 consecutive samples on the right channel hard-clipped.
What's interesting is, they are not clipped by the maximum a 16-bit waveform can handle (i.e. the value 32767). They are hard-clipping somewhere around 32,000 but still have a tiny amount of wiggle there. I think what that means is that it was instead the compressor component that was driven to the limit.
EDIT: Here's another interesting graph. It's the distribution of amplitude values over the whole album, zoomed in on the tail end of the distribution (towards the 32,767 value). It's coming in normally from the left as you would expect from an audio signal, but then you see those two big spikes.
(https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/rumborak/hist_zpsb84d5177.png)
The first, smooth spike will be the compressor one, whereas the second one is the 32,767 one, i.e. where they actually maxed out the 16-bit waveform range.
The way to look at these spikes is, all that "mass" of those two spikes was, in the original audio signal, to the right of those spikes. Meaning, a solid chunk of dynamics got smooth-squeezed by the compressor, and hard-clipped by the waveform range. Not good.
-
Can you run your program on some other DT albums for comparison? And maybe compare it to some other album extremes (Death Magnetic on one end and ?? on the other)
-
I have SFAM as a FLAC too, so here's the same second graph for that album:
(https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/rumborak/sfam_zpse6e12198.png)
-
Nice work. We need you bored more often to figure stuff out like this, ;) Do you think the guys are aware of where the shortcomings are in order to improve on future releases?
-
To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure they're even in the slightest aware at the DTF bitching about the compression. When I read the fan posts on the official FB page for example, it's all people replying how DT12 is the best album ever.
-
To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure they're even in the slightest aware at the DTF bitching about the compression. When I read the fan posts on the official FB page for example, it's all people replying how DT12 is the best album ever.
Okay, even if they aren't aware of the fan base complaining about it, how does JP and JR not hear it after listening to the finished product? I'm sure someone has already brought this up and it;s been discussed to death. it's more a hypothetical question. JR's musical proficiency is boundless. Do you think he listens to the CD and goes "yeah this is the best we could do."
-
I've been listening to DT12HD for a few days and all I can say is "meh".
It sounds a little clearer, sure, maybe the kick drum is a little more punchy but for me personally I won't be buying HD versions again. It's not worth the $26 (lame dollar conversion + tax) for only a little gain.
It needs/needed to be a "whoa" difference for me to justify it and it just isn't.
I already asked about a guitar part in Illumination Theory and that's no different between CD/HD but mostly cuz of the fade out/in that was pointed out to me. I think where I was really surprised to NOT hear any improvement is during the guitar solo on The Bigger Picture (probably my all-time favourite Dream Theater song now) when Mangini is playing something in the background that sounds like chimey little bells, dunno what they're actually called, and they are very quiet on the CD and I was hoping with the HD version they'd be louder or have more presence but they sound the same.
I will say it sounds better in my car than my headphones but still not better enough over the CD to warrant further purchases. I tried.
-
I've been listening to DT12HD for a few days and all I can say is "meh".
It sounds a little clearer, sure, maybe the kick drum is a little more punchy but for me personally I won't be buying HD versions again. It's not worth the $26 (lame dollar conversion + tax) for only a little gain.
It needs/needed to be a "whoa" difference for me to justify it and it just isn't.
I already asked about a guitar part in Illumination Theory and that's no different between CD/HD but mostly cuz of the fade out/in that was pointed out to me. I think where I was really surprised to NOT hear any improvement is during the guitar solo on The Bigger Picture (probably my all-time favourite Dream Theater song now) when Mangini is playing something in the background that sounds like chimey little bells, dunno what they're actually called, and they are very quiet on the CD and I was hoping with the HD version they'd be louder or have more presence but they sound the same.
I will say it sounds better in my car than my headphones but still not better enough over the CD to warrant further purchases. I tried.
I bought the HD Tracks version and I did notice a difference. The HD master is not as loud as the CD master. if you crank up the volume to lets say 10, the HD version should be quieter. I don't think you will get to hear the details that you would like to hear. That would require a remix which I don't think it will happen.
-
Had too much spare time today (snowed in once again), so I wrote a small script that detects hard-clipping in wave files. Ran it over DT12, and probably not too surprising, it found a ton of clips. This one is from TBP, right before "would you talk me off the ledge":
(https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/rumborak/dt_clip_zps8f5d08b2.png)
That's a solid 10 consecutive samples on the right channel hard-clipped.
What's interesting is, they are not clipped by the maximum a 16-bit waveform can handle (i.e. the value 32767). They are hard-clipping somewhere around 32,000 but still have a tiny amount of wiggle there. I think what that means is that it was instead the compressor component that was driven to the limit.
I know it's a decent amount of work, but I'd love to see this graph done for the other DT albums, especially to compare pre- and post-RR.
-
Ok, here's the most interesting graph so far:
EDIT: Disregard this graph, it was buggy.
I changed my script to, instead of just looking at a single sample at a time, look at the "short-term energy" of 100ms at a time, and then generate a histogram of that short-time energy.
You can definitely see the progression over the years from an almost quite IAW (red line), to an insanely loud DT12 (yellow line).
-
Maybe they are just playing louder songs also because they have gone towards more metal sounding songs later in their career? Can you compare relatively similar-sounding songs? I see the FII graph, and I see that it also reached the loud levels, most likely because of the punch of Peruvian Skies and Burning My Soul.
SC also appears to be insanely loud based from the graph.
-
Well then it's settled. Whatever the hell they did for Images and Words, they need to do again. Everything sounded crisp, clear, and we didn't need HD Tracks.
-
Rumbo, I would just like to take this moment to appreciate both your awesome geekiness and your geeky awesomeness.
Carry on.
-
Well then it's settled. Whatever the hell they did for Images and Words, they need to do again. Everything sounded crisp, clear, and we didn't need HD Tracks.
But Images and Words are qualitatively different than their material today. It sounds dated also, so I would not want to go back to that sound again. I would be curious about comparisons of similarly arranged songs (ballad vs ballad, metal vs metal, Rush vs Rush)
-
Thank you, aarich :lol When it comes to geekiness, you can count on me walking the extra mile.
I find particularly striking in that graph the comparison between IAW and DT12. The quietest parts of DT12 are louder than the loudest parts of IAW.
SC also appears to be insanely loud based from the graph.
I think that fact shows that this measure correlates well with what people perceive as loud. At least on DTF, SC and DT12 are usually called the most brickwalled albums.
-
Well then it's settled. Whatever the hell they did for Images and Words, they need to do again. Everything sounded crisp, clear, and we didn't need HD Tracks.
But Images and Words are qualitatively different than their material today. It sounds dated also, so I would not want to go back to that sound again. I would be curious about comparisons of similarly arranged songs (ballad vs ballad, metal vs metal, Rush vs Rush)
Well I'm not necessarily saying to write the same type of music, but whatever it was that gave it that sound definitely helps. Would Images and Words have sounded as pleasing to us if it was recorded the same way as DT12?
-
How would they compare with ToT and SDOIT? Again, I bring this up because aside from the brickwalling, maybe what the graph is showing is also the difference in the type of music they are playing. FII is closer to SC than I&W based on the graphs, but we do not hear many hear complaining of brickwalling in that record.
-
Well then it's settled. Whatever the hell they did for Images and Words, they need to do again. Everything sounded crisp, clear, and we didn't need HD Tracks.
But Images and Words are qualitatively different than their material today. It sounds dated also, so I would not want to go back to that sound again. I would be curious about comparisons of similarly arranged songs (ballad vs ballad, metal vs metal, Rush vs Rush)
Well I'm not necessarily saying to write the same type of music, but whatever it was that gave it that sound definitely helps. Would Images and Words have sounded as pleasing to us if it was recorded the same way as DT12?
Well, for one, the DT12 songs are collectively more metal in style than I&W, so they would definitely be louder. Again, I am bringing this up, because FII, which is highly regarded in this DTF in terms of production, looks closer to SC and DT12 in this graph than to I&W.
-
How would they compare with ToT and SDOIT? Again, I bring this up because aside from the brickwalling, maybe what the graph is showing is also the difference in the type of music they are playing. FII is closer to SC than I&W based on the graphs, but we do not hear many hear complaining of brickwalling in that record.
I understand what you are saying. FII gets a lot of praise here for its sound yet there are similarities between it and DT12 according to the graph. I'm not sure what causes that to be honest. Maybe rumbo can explain further?
-
CRAP!
While walking to work, I just realized there is a bug in my script. Specifically, it makes the comparisons between the albums somewhat invalid. I am retracting the graph for now, and will regenerate it when I get back from work. Stay tuned!
(for the technically minded: When I'm generating the histogram for each album, I'm first looking at the maximum energy, so I can rescale it so it fits into the 1,000 buckets. However, for the graphs I'm not "unscaling" it again. So, albums might be squished or expanded due to the bug)
-
CRAP!
While walking to work, I just realized there is a bug in my script. Specifically, it makes the comparisons between the albums somewhat invalid. I am retracting the graph for now, and will regenerate it when I get back from work. Stay tuned!
(for the technically minded: When I'm generating the histogram for each album, I'm first looking at the maximum energy, so I can rescale it so it fits into the 1,000 buckets. However, for the graphs I'm not "unscaling" it again. So, albums might be squished or expanded due to the bug)
How long will we have to wait for the PS3 patch?
-
(https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/rumborak/dt_collection2_zpse63dfab5.png)
Fixed the bug, new graph!
Not really much has changed though, the order of albums remained the same, and DT12's quietest parts are still louder than IAW loudest.
EDIT: Interesting tidbit, the loudest section in all those albums is TDEN, 7.7 seconds in :lol
-
Can you repeat what the x and y axis represents again?
I'm thinking it is:
X = the bit representation of the db level at that frame (point in time)
Y = the # of frames that db level occurs through out the total album.
Every time I see an axis going up to about 20,000, I immediately think Hz-pitch, but I don't think that was what you were talking about.
-
The x-axis is "RMS" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square) value, which is essentially a measure proportional to the dB value (and thus loudness) of a section. The sections are 100ms long each.
And yeah, the y axis is how many segments had that RMS value.
-
So Awake and I&W look similar with Awake just having the headroom increased, so the entire graph shifts.
Met 2 seems to have a low volume peak. I'm guessing this is because the album songwriting has more lows, especially the spoken word parts.
Falling Into Infinity does seem to have the widest dynamic range spread.
The two Roadrunner examples seem to be really close to one another. Lots of loud noises in a short dynamic range ... range.
-
EDIT: Interesting tidbit, the loudest section in all those albums is TDEN, 7.7 seconds in :lol
I absolutely would have guessed that. With the cranked guitar/bass/drums in unison, you can hear it pumping the compression.
And where's SDOIT?
-
I intentionally left some albums out because it becomes too hard to make them out in the graph when there's too many. (the graphing software I use is also not very inventive with its colors; it just starts reusing them).
Regarding TDEN, that section is ridiculously clipped. When you zoom into it, there's large swaths of samples at the waveform limit for long stretches of time.
I think the part I don't get is, when that happens in any kind of professional audio software, it throws red flags all over the place. They must have actively ignored those red flags to arrive at that level of compression.
-
What about comparing it to some other album classics outside of Dream Theater?
-
What genre was the first to really start this super hot, compressed sound? I'm thinking industrial music?
-
Problem is, I need the WAV files. For the DT albums I got the FLACs, but I would have to go out of my way to get it for other albums.
-
Problem is, I need the WAV files. For the DT albums I got the FLACs, but I would have to go out of my way to get it for other albums.
My entire CD collection is in FLAC format, but I think it is illegal for me to share with you. :biggrin:
Although your second graph is neat to check out, I liked the original graph which showed the flattening of the actual notes / drum hits / sounds.
I'm betting distorted guitar music in general is much less dynamic than other music. Back in the day, I'd test audio equipment with something like DT's Scarred intro, simply because it was very dynamic compared to other metal albums. Another favorite was The Cardigans Paralyzed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGVPsmwqh48
It has that nice low end, but also a lot of space.
There are test CDs, but you also need to kind of check how the equipment will color the music you listen to 90% of the time.
-
rumbo, can I reqeust that you the same analysis with ToT. Just so I can clear in my mind that it is not really mostly a function of DT just playing louder more metal songs in the catalogue, than compression.
The new graph also now shows that SC is louder than DT12.
-
The new graph also now shows that SC is louder than DT12.
But it also shows that it is softer. And I always thought the problem wasn't necessarily how loud something is, but the range from soft to loud.
-
Then it could really just be a function of having a variety of softer and louder songs. For example, SC has a long 10+ minute song that is not loud (Repentance), a long relatively quiet portion at the start of ITPOE 2, and the song portion of TMOLS is also relatively soft.
The reason that FII appears to have a lot of dynamic range in this graph maybe because it has lots of ballads (Anna Lee, Hollow Years, Take Away My Pain) but a lot of loud metal songs as well (Peruvian Skies, New Millennium, Burning My Soul).
Also, as the y axis appears to be absolute values instead of relative values, the curves are not really comparable. Although the shape could indeed show the distribution. But then again, the shape of the distribution could just be indicative of the turn towards more metal songs from early to current DT, not really of the effect of more compression in the mixes.
-
The second graph definitely isn't a be all end all because of the factors mentioned. More like a good overview. The first graphs that show the amplitude going from sine wave like rises to flat cut offs is probably the more definitive view. It suggests the highs were leveled so the lows can be raised, this squeezing (compressing) the range from low to high. That's what it really all comes down to.
And in some ways that works for people that always listen via their mp3 player while working out or pumping the music in their cars. I don't even bother listening to classical music in those situations can the lows can literally be drowned out by the surrounding environment for minutes. And you have the option to crank it knowing you are going to have bleeding ears when the dynamics of the song rise again, you grin and bear it or you give up and skip to a different song (or song section).
There have been times where I've tried to listen to classical music in the car only to have to look at my dash or phone to make sure the music is still playing. Just doesn't seem worth the effort sometimes.
-
Rumbo, in those graphs, just to check - are the SC and DT12 ones based on the CDs, or the HD tracks?
-
Then it could really just be a function of having a variety of softer and louder songs.
I don't think so. And I have no idea why you would think that.
-
Rumbo, in those graphs, just to check - are the SC and DT12 ones based on the CDs, or the HD tracks?
All CD tracks. I don't have the HDTracks. Would be a very interesting comparison indeed, but I'm not willing to dish out the money.
Regarding the graph, what I find it shows very well is how DT has increasingly succumbed to the loudness war. I think DT12's distribution shows exactly what people perceive: There's no middle ground anymore in terms of volume, it's full blast to the point of clipping most of the time.
-
Is there a way to create a program routine that specifically counts the amount of times the amplitude gets hard limited like the graph that had the arrow pointing it out? That could be a useful tool for those mixing their own songs. Of course clipped at the source (microphone to *tape*) are hard coded mistakes.
-
According to the more typical ways of measuring dynamic range, the vinyls and HD tracks versions of the last two albums are supposed to be good.
https://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=dream+theater&album=
DT really can't be unaware of the loudness war since it's been going on way too long. Maybe they simply feel that you want to hear the best version, you pay the premium :/
-
Even the DR value doesn't really give a perfect relative comparison. The HDTracks version of DT12 certainly sounds much better than the CD, but it does not sound comparable to a true DR12 as it indicates. There's a lot of headroom for the peaks of the drum hits, but the individual tracks are still very compressed.
Surely somewhere out there is a more accurate way to compare the volume of albums that is a little smarter.
-
Most of the DR checking is just to reassure ourselves that we aren't taking crazy pills. It seems like the backlash is building a bit more every year, but everything seems "big" on the internet.
The internet. Invented for porn and bitching.
-
The DR is useful to indicate the negative trend in the industry, and it's a good approximation of the compression applied to an album, I just wish there was a bit of a more complete measure that was still quick and easy for people to read.
Perhaps a graph of DR over frequencies would be a good solution. Maybe that already exists.
-
I think one of the difficulties with finding an automatic measure is, while say SC is heavily compressed, different sections are compressed to different levels. In any automatic measure this will show up as variation, but reality is that the ear easily tells the compression.
EDIT: Hmm, maybe a sliding window (of say a few seconds) would work, and the measure is the dB variance in that window.
-
Most of FII looks like a rectangle too, but it still sounds pretty good. You have to use your ears aswell as your eyes.
Uh, call me old-fashioned, but it's MUSIC. I'm pretty much going to use just my ears.
-
According to the more typical ways of measuring dynamic range, the vinyls and HD tracks versions of the last two albums are supposed to be good.
https://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=dream+theater&album=
DT really can't be unaware of the loudness war since it's been going on way too long. Maybe they simply feel that you want to hear the best version, you pay the premium :/
Or maybe they disagree with your opinion on the "best version".
If you can't tell, not a freedom fighter in the loudness wars. I don't think it is the whole story, by any means, but I think that some are overly minimizing the notion that artists - musicians - want their music heard. And they want it to sound as good as it can to as many people as it can. So there will invariably be some that either want it to sound a different way generally, or listen to their music differently than the majority. I'm not at all understanding why musicians should forsake the majority of their audience in order to cater to a relatively small minority.
-
Then it could really just be a function of having a variety of softer and louder songs.
I don't think so. And I have no idea why you would think that.
Well, actually that definitely would have an impact. I'm not suggesting for a second that it would explain the whole difference, and certainly in a case like the regular DT12 mastering where even the quietest moments (except perhaps the ambient/orchestral sections) are pushed right to limit it would be irrelevant. But where the production does allow for some dynamic range, then the musical balance between louder and quieter sections would affect the results.
-
So there will invariably be some that either want it to sound a different way generally, or listen to their music differently than the majority. I'm not at all understanding why musicians should forsake the majority of their audience in order to cater to a relatively small minority.
I think you have the implicit assumption there that DT are aware of the in-depth reception of their albums. I don't think that is the case; I think all they are exposed to are ultra-sugarcoated praises they get during Meet & Greets, and general sales numbers. In particular, DT only hears why people *still* listen to their music. They never hear why certain people *stopped* listening to their music.
So, my best guess is DT is operating somewhat in the dark, and thus go for what they perceive the "greater public" wants. This will certainly also be guided by RR's ideas on the matter.
Also, another thing to comment on, keep in mind that barely any artist listens to their own albums, i.e. the final product, more than twice. I don't think DT are aware of the low replay value of DT12. They will have listened to it once when they got the CD, concluded "this album is strong, and pushes hard", but never ended up trying to listen to it 10 times.
-
I remember quite clearly that Jordan said in an interview that Dream Theater were permanently 'done' with the whole loudness war. This was around (I think before) DT12 came out.
-
I remember quite clearly that Jordan said in an interview that Dream Theater were permanently 'done' with the whole loudness war. This was around (I think before) DT12 came out.
They also made comments about not wanting to be part of the loudness war at the time of BCASL too, so I wouldn't expect a major change in approach.
-
That graph is incredibly interesting Rumborak. Thanks so much for taking the time to do it up for us.
There are a few things I notice, besides the ones previously discussed. Images is the quietest album by far, and it all sits in a nice little pocket with loads of (maybe too much) headroom.
Awake is similar, but louder, though there is a smaller plateau before the main hump. I suspect TSM and SDV were mastered almost separately from the rest of the album, and given little compression.
FII is quite loud, though there seems to be a fair bit of dynamics throughout. Its a common opinion that this is the best sounding loud DT album, and this graph lends credence to that.
SFAM is quite contrasted between its light and heavy songs, making a very dynamic album overall (the dynamics within each track notwithstanding).
I'd love to hear your thoughts on my opinions. Do they sound plausible?
-
Totally agree on all of it, yeah. I think SFAM is particularly interesting in this sense, since it has a main hump not *that* far away from the main hump of the two most compressed, SC and DT12. I think the reason why it works is because SFAM has a lot of breathers between hard-hitting songs. Same with FII, but instead of having very quiet breathers, it rather has an extended slope to the softer parts.
I think FII probably stands out because it gets closed to the desired
------------\
\
\
shape.
-
Shouldn't the area below the curves be the length of that album? IAW appears to have more area below than DT12, por example. Is this possibly due to the fact that the graph starts at 2000 and not 0 (which I imagine is the lowest RMS)?
-
Yeah, I didn't show the area of 0-2000 because that area spikes up very high for all albums, way outside the range (or conversely, if one were to show the 0 range, the other stuff would be hard to tell).
-
What genre was the first to really start this super hot, compressed sound? I'm thinking industrial music?
Some people say it was the oasis debut Definitely Maybe - which was mixed to have no dynamics at all.
-
There's still something I can't understand. How can music have specific values for dB (or RMS) in certain places, when the volume of a song depends on how much do you turn some know or press some buttons?
Also, playing the devil's advocate here but in a reflection of a true doubt: if a lot of DT12 is hidden in the 0-2,000 range (given that we need area for it) and there's a bunch on 10,000, wouldn't it make DT12 more dynamic than I&W whose values which is mainly distributed from 2,000 to 8,000?
-
when the volume of a song depends on how much do you turn some know or press some buttons?
I have difficulty parsing this sentence. Can you reword it?
Also, playing the devil's advocate here but in a reflection of a true doubt: if a lot of DT12 is hidden in the 0-2,000 range (given that we need area for it) and there's a bunch on 10,000, wouldn't it make DT12 more dynamic than I&W whose values which is mainly distributed from 2,000 to 8,000?
I think a lot of the values in the 0-2000 range are just plain silence. Be that between tracks, or for example the long prelude to the orchestral section in IT.
But, at last in my book, silence isn't what I would call "dynamics" in a song. To me, dynamics is the volume change *within* a song, not just pauses outside of it.
I think specifically, what's so striking about DT12's distribution is that, outside the 0-2000 silence range, almost all other energy is confined to the high values.
-
My question was about the existence of an intrinsic value for loudness for music. Every time you listen to a recorded song, you listen through some equipment, and most if not all audio devices allow you to change the volume (if it's 0, it's on mute).
-
My question was about the existence of an intrinsic value for loudness for music. Every time you listen to a recorded song, you listen through some equipment, and most if not all audio devices allow you to change the volume (if it's 0, it's on mute).
Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ
-
What genre was the first to really start this super hot, compressed sound? I'm thinking industrial music?
Some people say it was the oasis debut Definitely Maybe - which was mixed to have no dynamics at all.
That's part of the problem of this for me. If you google this sort of thing, especially if you start to get into the forums for various bands, everyone from Motorhead to Slayer to Enya to Celine Dion is "brickwalled". Honestly, I play Devil's Advocate a lot in these threads for this reason. Having said that, here, it is clear that the people making their case (whether I agree with it or not) know whereof they speak. Nine times out of ten, however, the person yapping and bitching about "the production" and "brickwalling" doesn't know the first thing about what they are talking about. When you get right down to it, they are really bitching because [insert favorite band]'s latest album doesn't sound like [insert their favorite album].
Over the years, I've heard complaints about Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Bruce Springsteen, Led Zeppelin and Christina Aguilera, which in part is what drives my skepticism of this whole issue. While I don't think for a second that John Petrucci or Jordan Rudess are releasing material that they don't approve of, if you told me, hand on heart, that they didn't like it but were forced by the record companies to comply, I would grudgingly accept that. But Paul McCartney? Sir Paul Fucking McCartney? At this point, he probably has as much clout in the music industry as any artist alive (and if he doesn't, it is likely Bruce Springsteen or Jimmy Page, both also on the list) and you cannot convince me, without a direct quote in response to a direct question on the issue, that he doesn't approve of every one of his releases before it hits the street. The meticulousness for which he is reknowned throughout his career on all levels - music, lyrics, publishing, artwork, etc. - all of a sudden miraculously goes out the window upon mastering? I'm thinking not.
-
Stadler, no offense, but your block of text there strikes as one of those attempts to "verbose away" a problem by simply producing the most text against it. I mean, do you seriously claim that DT12 does not have a dynamics problem? I think the various graphs in this thread show that it is one of the loudest DT albums ever produced, and that the signal was driven heavily into the limit of the compressor.
-
Paul McCartney's Memory Almost Full album was definitely clipped and hurt to listen to.
-
Also, having a big established name means very little. I'm pretty sure Rush had complete artistic when it came to producing Vapor Trails. At that point they had been 30 years in the business, and yet produced an horrendously brickwalled album. And they even realized it themselves later, and rereleased it completely remastered.
-
Also, having a big established name means very little. I'm pretty sure Rush had complete artistic when it came to producing Vapor Trails. At that point they had been 30 years in the business, and yet produced an horrendously brickwalled album. And they even realized it themselves later, and rereleased it completely remastered.
Very true. I'm sure listening to a final product in studio sounds different than throwing the CD into your home stereo. We don't know what Rush or Dream Theater or Paul McCartney actually listen to as the finished product. Like I mentioned earlier, with all of Jordan Rudess' musical proficiency, do you think he listened to the CD and said "yes this is the best we can do."
-
My question was about the existence of an intrinsic value for loudness for music. Every time you listen to a recorded song, you listen through some equipment, and most if not all audio devices allow you to change the volume (if it's 0, it's on mute).
That's why the shape of the distributions is important too. I agree, IAW and Awake aren't really all that different, it's just that Awake is shifted to a higher volume.
However, the x-scale in those graphs isn't really open-ended. The reason being, a signal on a CD can only operate in the range -32,767 to 32,767. So, the higher you push the RMS value, the more and more likely you are pushing your audio signal into the limit. In fact, the highest theoretical RMS value possible for a section *is* the value 32,767 (this would be a signal that goes plus maximum -> minus maximum back and forth).
EDIT: Here's a visual example of the infamous section in TDEN:
(https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/rumborak/tden_zps56a46fe2.png)
I would think you'd agree this audio is massively clipped. It has an RMS value of ~19,700, meaning if you operate in that area of RMS, your signal is very likely to be clipped.
-
Stadler, no offense, but your block of text there strikes as one of those attempts to "verbose away" a problem by simply producing the most text against it. I mean, do you seriously claim that DT12 does not have a dynamics problem? I think the various graphs in this thread show that it is one of the loudest DT albums ever produced, and that the signal was driven heavily into the limit of the compressor.
Do I think it is one of (if not the) loudest DT albums every produced? Yes.
Do I agree that the signal was driven heavily into the limit of the compressor? Yes.
Do I consider that something I don't really want to listen to? Yes.
Do I consider that a "problem"? There's the rub.
If Petrucci (*or whoever represents the band on these matters) said "Roadrunner, please, I beg of you, DO NOT release this this way!" and yet they did, then, yes, it is a huge problem. (This is "Vapor Trails", to me).
If Petrucci* said "Bro, this is awesome, I love it, I can't wait for everyone to have their ears blistered!" then no, it isn't a problem at all. (This is The Stooges "Raw Power", to me).
If Petrucci*, like Geddy Lee on other Rush releases, said "well, it is a compromise, but, at this point, a compromise that I am willing to live with", then, honeslty, no, I don't see it as a problem. (This is, in my view, with no insider knowledge, the closest to the reality of the situation).
It is not a problem just because some graph is moved out to the right from where it could be.
-
Also, having a big established name means very little. I'm pretty sure Rush had complete artistic when it came to producing Vapor Trails. At that point they had been 30 years in the business, and yet produced an horrendously brickwalled album. And they even realized it themselves later, and rereleased it completely remastered.
They've gone on record as saying they were not fully in control of the situation, though in typical (classy beyond belief) Rush fashion, they took responsibility for it. Geddy Lee has been very upfront about this issue. He has said that the band was not "of right mind" at that time, and were focused on other things (primarily Neil's well-being) and that while they could have stopped it, they didn't, but it wasn't a matter of "this is exactly what we want!" then later said "oops!". I shouldn't have to provide links; we all know how to Google. He has been forthright on other releases (such as Clockwork Angels, which is also relatively hot) that it is a compromise that he and the band consciously make, but is one that he can live with and if it ever crosses the line, he is willing to make a stand. So you can rest easy that excepting the initial VT release, at least Geddy is signing off on Rush's contribution to the loudness wars.
-
Also, having a big established name means very little. I'm pretty sure Rush had complete artistic when it came to producing Vapor Trails. At that point they had been 30 years in the business, and yet produced an horrendously brickwalled album. And they even realized it themselves later, and rereleased it completely remastered.
Very true. I'm sure listening to a final product in studio sounds different than throwing the CD into your home stereo. We don't know what Rush or Dream Theater or Paul McCartney actually listen to as the finished product. Like I mentioned earlier, with all of Jordan Rudess' musical proficiency, do you think he listened to the CD and said "yes this is the best we can do."
And I'm saying that absent some statement otherwise, it is just as likely and just as logical that the answer to that is "yes I do think that" as it is "no I don't". (Though admittedly it is more likely "I can live with this as a representation of my band" as it is "this is the best we can do").
-
So your point is (just to see whether I understand it correctly), if it corresponds to the artist's vision, it might not be something anybody really likes, but it's not a problem since that's what, in the end, art is? Not that I necessarily disagree with that argument, mind you.
I don't think however that JP is really aware of this problem, as little as Rush were aware of it when they released Vapor Trails. I think during the recording process, artists can get caught up in the thick of it and lose perspective of the grand total. That's why having an independent producer is so vitally important. Other than giving you fresh ideas, he will simply not have lost sight of the whole thing, since he's somewhat outside the creative process.
EDIT: Particularly in the case of DT, *who have said* they were done with the loudness war, to then go on and producing an album on par in loudness with their hitherto loudest album, really makes me wonder whether a) JP and JR really are not aware of it or b) they're just paying lip service to the fans who ask, but intend to continue making super-compressed albums because they presume that that's what people want to hear.
-
Also, having a big established name means very little. I'm pretty sure Rush had complete artistic when it came to producing Vapor Trails. At that point they had been 30 years in the business, and yet produced an horrendously brickwalled album. And they even realized it themselves later, and rereleased it completely remastered.
Very true. I'm sure listening to a final product in studio sounds different than throwing the CD into your home stereo. We don't know what Rush or Dream Theater or Paul McCartney actually listen to as the finished product. Like I mentioned earlier, with all of Jordan Rudess' musical proficiency, do you think he listened to the CD and said "yes this is the best we can do."
And I'm saying that absent some statement otherwise, it is just as likely and just as logical that the answer to that is "yes I do think that" as it is "no I don't". (Though admittedly it is more likely "I can live with this as a representation of my band" as it is "this is the best we can do").
I doubt Jordan Rudess and John Petrucci (who is extremely picky about everything when it comes to the music) heard that and was pleased and thought the production on the CD was top quality. It's obvious, based on what we now about JP, that what they heard in the studio was probably nothing like what we hear on a CD.
-
So your point is (just to see whether I understand it correctly), if it corresponds to the artist's vision, it might not be something anybody really likes, but it's not a problem since that's what, in the end, art is? Not that I necessarily disagree with that argument, mind you.
That's my position, generally, though I will concede that I think the loudness issue is a little more nuanced. I think in many cases it falls into the grey area of "this isn't my first choice, but it isn't an issue I want to make my Waterloo".
I don't think however that JP is really aware of this problem, as little as Rush were aware of it when they released Vapor Trails. I think during the recording process, artists can get caught up in the thick of it and lose perspective of the grand total. That's why having an independent producer is so vitally important. Other than giving you fresh ideas, he will simply not have lost sight of the whole thing, since he's somewhat outside the creative process.
Look, this is civil, and I understand and respect that your opinion is as valid (perhaps in some ways more valid) than mine, but I respectfully disagree with that first statement. I don't know how a) he can be, especially being in a band with someone who was SO plugged in to nuances and foibles of the music industry for as long as he has and b) why anyone would base an argument on a professional in the field - and one recognized by many as being among the top in his field - being wholly and completely ignorant of a pretty significant issue, and one which even laymen can figure out ("why does this sound like SHIT?"). You don't think JP has heard/read articles about his favorite band's record? You don't think JP has asked himself why his favorite band had to remix a recent album? You don't think a guy that has written some of the very introspective lyrics he has written doesn't at some point look in the mirror and say "does that happen to us"?
EDIT: Particularly in the case of DT, *who have said* they were done with the loudness war, to then go on and producing an album on par in loudness with their hitherto loudest album, really makes me wonder whether a) JP and JR really are not aware of it or b) they're just paying lip service to the fans who ask, but intend to continue making super-compressed albums because they presume that that's what people want to hear.
Well, first, what does "we're done with the loudness war" mean? That they aren't going to continue to push levels, or they aren't going to worry about whether they do push the levels? Or aren't going to care one way or another, as long as the mixes and masters they issue sound good to them? This is a legitimate question, because I haven't seen the quote except as stated here. I know when I first heard it, I interpreted it as a statement of "indifference", not, as some have taken it, as a pledge to respond with a quality of sound that appeases the most diehard loudness war freedom fighter. Unless I have some statement otherwise, I assume that someone who has dedicated their entire lives and sacrificed their time with their family are responsible for their artistic output. It simply makes NO sense to assume otherwise. So I assume it is b), but replace "they presume that that's what people want to hear" with "that's the way they like it".
-
So your point is (just to see whether I understand it correctly), if it corresponds to the artist's vision, it might not be something anybody really likes, but it's not a problem since that's what, in the end, art is? Not that I necessarily disagree with that argument, mind you.
I don't think however that JP is really aware of this problem, as little as Rush were aware of it when they released Vapor Trails. I think during the recording process, artists can get caught up in the thick of it and lose perspective of the grand total. That's why having an independent producer is so vitally important. Other than giving you fresh ideas, he will simply not have lost sight of the whole thing, since he's somewhat outside the creative process.
EDIT: Particularly in the case of DT, *who have said* they were done with the loudness war, to then go on and producing an album on par in loudness with their hitherto loudest album, really makes me wonder whether a) JP and JR really are not aware of it or b) they're just paying lip service to the fans who ask, but intend to continue making super-compressed albums because they presume that that's what people want to hear.
I basically agree with this. If a production style (including overly loud/compressed) is an artist's intention/vision, that's fine. However, when JP spoke about how exciting the HDtracks releases were, he said something about it being great to have them in the un-mastered HD quality that they get in the studio. Which strongly suggests that what the band hears is pre-mastering. So I doubt the band is really aware of the problem.
-
Unless I have some statement otherwise, I assume that someone who has dedicated their entire lives and sacrificed their time with their family are responsible for their artistic output. It simply makes NO sense to assume otherwise.
I agree. But when I think of DT's (or any other artist) "artistic output," I am thinking of the music they write and perform, not the mastering on the recording. I have no reason to believe that they or any other artist knows all that much about that part of the business, until they prove that they do. They are fantastic musicians, to be sure, but I don't for one minute think it is a coincidence that their best-sounding albums were done with outside producers.
-
^^^ Absolutely.
I think it's tempting to assume that just because they know their instruments really well, they are well-versed in every aspect of music production.
Specifically, I would like to point out, they dropped out of Berklee after the first year, so it's not that they learned it either. And yes, ever since they took the helm at production, their studio releases have had one production issue or another.
-
I'll be the person that defends DT12's production:
1. I can hear all the instruments relatively clearly. The keyboard balance in particular isn't quite as good as ADTOE, but nothing ever just feels buried in the mix or muddy.
2. I can turn it up. A lot of highly compressed albums are very harsh on my ears if I turn them up. There's too much pain relative to the amount of music I'm taking in. DT12 I can crank really loud without feeling an inordinate amount of pain.
3. I like the aesthetics. I'm apparently the only person here who likes the drum sound. It slams relentlessly and is very dark, which matches the material. Unlike ADTOE, they're nice and loud how I like them. Except for TEI (vocals are too soft), JLB's vocal mix on this album is one of his best. Very lush and full. Maybe my favorite guitar tone on any DT album. Bass is very audible and aggressive (before, it felt like either JM had too much or too little distortion). The keyboard arrangements are very stripped back, but what's left contributes a lot of tone without taking away the metallic quality of the music (a problem Paul Northfield said DT grappled with).
There's a lot of bad things to be said about DT12's production, but people act like the record is a sonic failure, which I don't agree with. Also, the past is too easily romanticized. The bass on I&W is pretty muddy, distractingly so sometimes. The snare on FII is sometimes distractingly loud. DT12 definitely sounds better than anything producted from SFAM to BCSL. And maybe better than ADTOE too (depends on what you value from a mix).
Why the hate yo?
-
Some things are open to artistic interpretation, but some things are just technical issues. We seem to be talking about a technical issue here.
It is almost like producing a surround sound movie soundtrack in mono. In rare cases, there might be an artistic call for that, but the standard soundscape rarely calls for that.
-
For me, DT12 is the worst sounding album. Okay...maybe second worst, but it's just frustrating to me.
-
I'll be the person that defends DT12's production:
1. I can hear all the instruments relatively clearly. The keyboard balance in particular isn't quite as good as ADTOE, but nothing ever just feels buried in the mix or muddy.
2. I can turn it up. A lot of highly compressed albums are very harsh on my ears if I turn them up. There's too much pain relative to the amount of music I'm taking in. DT12 I can crank really loud without feeling an inordinate amount of pain.
3. I like the aesthetics. I'm apparently the only person here who likes the drum sound. It slams relentlessly and is very dark, which matches the material. Unlike ADTOE, they're nice and loud how I like them. Except for TEI (vocals are too soft), JLB's vocal mix on this album is one of his best. Very lush and full. Maybe my favorite guitar tone on any DT album. Bass is very audible and aggressive (before, it felt like either JM had too much or too little distortion). The keyboard arrangements are very stripped back, but what's left contributes a lot of tone without taking away the metallic quality of the music (a problem Paul Northfield said DT grappled with).
There's a lot of bad things to be said about DT12's production, but people act like the record is a sonic failure, which I don't agree with. Also, the past is too easily romanticized. The bass on I&W is pretty muddy, distractingly so sometimes. The snare on FII is sometimes distractingly loud. DT12 definitely sounds better than anything producted from SFAM to BCSL. And maybe better than ADTOE too (depends on what you value from a mix).
Why the hate yo?
"Sonic failure" is actually the exact description I'd use. I agree with the part about the past being romanticized, actually, but DT12 is easily a new low in a low string of lows for production value. The thing that stinks is I'm pretty sure DT are trying to do better, they're just not getting the right people in place to do it.
-
Skeever and rumborak, thanks for educating me. I went after some other sources to understand the issue better.
Maybe bands & producers go for loud music because it fits better with noisy environments, where most music nowadays is heard. One solution would be to find a soft solution in which the equipment can be adjusted on the go, or it can be turned on/off (like an equalizer) to match the listener's preferences.
-
The HD Tracks version of DT is a not a sonic failure. The CD version, it's fine, because it's very listenable in listening environments that are more commonplace nowadays (that is, on a commute, in your workstation, in a coffee shop, while working out, while in the car, etc.), which I think is the reason why they went with that compressed sound that could break through the environment noise. It does not work well in quiet environments, though, so the HD Tracks version is the one that's built for that.
I can listen to the full album of the CD version of DT at full volume in outdoor environments (not with in-ears but with my ordinary earphones). Even did it back to back a couple of times. Never got a headache or listening fatigue.
The vocal dissenters are really just very vocal and push their opinions as facts, or present their numbers as some sort of consensus. But the production of DT the album is not really that bad, it's not the lowest of low, etc. But it's the way in this forum, just like in other online forums. The more vocal you are, the more hyperboles are used, the more legitimate your opinions are.
Anyway, for the next album, I hope they would try to experiment with a less compressed sound that would still work well in outside environments where music is mostly consumed nowadays. The Haken mix in The Mountain might be ok. Even the ToT mix is ok with me.
Also, four more production wishes:
1. Better snare sound that catches the subtleties in the playing so that the ghost notes can be heard. BTFW shows that it makes a lot of difference.
2. For cymbals, specially the rides and hi-hats, not to be buried in the mix.
3. A deeper bass sound. The trebly bass in the DT album is not bad, it's very in-your-face and catches attention. But I prefer the bass providing more bottom.
4. A more pronounced keyboard sound. It's part of the reason why I like TLG much morre in BTFW than in DT.
-
Then it could really just be a function of having a variety of softer and louder songs.
I don't think so. And I have no idea why you would think that.
Is it not logical to think that an album full of metal pieces would have a curve that would be up in the louder level than an album with a lot of ballads, which would would have more of the curve at the softer end of the spectrum?
FII in rumbo's graphs really appear to be more dynamics, but again, it could be influenced by having a mix of soft ballads and loud metal songs. It's the reason why I am asking for a similar graph of ToT, just to see if an album with a lot of metal songs would end up with a distribution that is quite similar to DT or SC.
-
"Sonic failure" is actually the exact description I'd use.
All things considered though, there is a decent balance in the mixing, despite the compression. The instruments are all audible within their own space despite the 'loudness'. Most of the impressions when the album first came out ranged from 'not too bad' to 'pretty good', and a lot were even praising the mix. Not the master mind you, which started to be recognised for what it was soon enough, but "Sonic failure"? That's more what I'd expect someone who's exaggerating the issue to label it. Not to dismiss the validity of some people's claims. But from my perspective, I pretty much agree with almost everything Stadler's said regarding the situation.
-
Yeah, I don't reall yhave any problem with the mix, which seems to be what Reap is talking about. It's the mastering that is the problem on the regular version. As someone else said, the HDtracks version mostly removes this problem and is certainly not a sonic failure.
-
I think there should have been much more balance between the instruments. I haven't listened to the album in many months, but I think TLG for an example had a few spots where there was some keyboard going on underneath all that guitar, but most of the time it's too difficult to isolate or focus on, because the guitar is just so in-your-face the whole time. The bass could definitely be more audible too, but I guess we're so used to JM being buried by now anyway that it just seems normal that way.
-
My main complains with DT12 sound are:
1) Cymbal volume. Better than ADTOE, but still much of MM's intricate patterns are lost because of the overwhelming guitar. BTFW is much better.
2)JR volume. He is buried a lot of times, case in point: TLG. Also an improvement on BTFW
3)James' vocal effects. He sometimes sounds so artificial and i don't like it. I would love to see James sounding more natural again.
-
3)James' vocal effects. He sometimes sounds so artificial and i don't like it. I would love to see James sounding more natural again.
Oh yes, I forgot about that. I would definitely would like less effects on JLB's vocals going forward. He doesn't need it either, he sounded great on Impermanent Resonance.
-
I basically agree with this. If a production style (including overly loud/compressed) is an artist's intention/vision, that's fine. However, when JP spoke about how exciting the HDtracks releases were, he said something about it being great to have them in the un-mastered HD quality that they get in the studio. Which strongly suggests that what the band hears is pre-mastering. So I doubt the band is really aware of the problem.
Honest question: doesn't this ("[It is] great to have them in the un-mastered HD quality") kind of strongly imply that they ARE aware of the condition (I don't call it a "problem")? Doesn't saying it is great to have them un-mastered require a comparison to the mastered state?
-
Unless I have some statement otherwise, I assume that someone who has dedicated their entire lives and sacrificed their time with their family are responsible for their artistic output. It simply makes NO sense to assume otherwise.
I agree. But when I think of DT's (or any other artist) "artistic output," I am thinking of the music they write and perform, not the mastering on the recording. I have no reason to believe that they or any other artist knows all that much about that part of the business, until they prove that they do. They are fantastic musicians, to be sure, but I don't for one minute think it is a coincidence that their best-sounding albums were done with outside producers.
This is an open question, and I'm asking because I've posed this before (on MP's site, on Fish's site, on Genesis' old site, and on Ed Trunk's site) and haven't gotten a really convincing answer yet:
Why would an artist take in some cases YEARS out of their life, putting in some cases their most cherished and heart-felt thoughts down on tape, working with multiple people over multiple takes, sometimes even scrapping everything to start again, in order to come up with the best possible work... then completely and utterly abdicate the last - and since it is the step that is the "touch" point with their audience - arguably most important step? You have Waters and the Dead and Zappa spending millions of dollars to put live sound rigs together so that the person standing in Row 35 of Section B gets the full experience and yet your argument is that they are ignorant of the ONE STEP that prepares their baby for audience consumption?
-
They generally hire professionals to do what you are talking about. Because they are musicians, not sound reinforcement engineers. It's a whole separate thing.
They make the music, but that doesn't mean they are experts on making the music sound good. Some are (Steven Wilson, for example), but that is a rarity. That's why producers have jobs.
I have no idea why you would conflate the two.
On a much smaller scale, I play music in my church band. At various times I play guitar or drums, and often sing as well. But I don't have anything to do with how the band sounds to the audience. That's not my job. It's the sound man's job. He mixes the sound, not me.
If something sounds off to me through the monitor mix, I try to describe what I'm hearing, and then he messes around with levels and EQ and effects until he gets it right. That's what he does. I just play and sing.
-
They generally hire professionals to do what you are talking about. Because they are musicians, not sound reinforcement engineers. It's a whole separate thing.
They make the music, but that doesn't mean they are experts on making the music sound good. Some are (Steven Wilson, for example), but that is a rarity. That's why producers have jobs.
I have no idea why you would conflate the two.
But I'm not conflating the two at all. Not suggesting they know HOW to do it, but they should (and I think DO) know WHAT to do. Fish and Portnoy aren't artists either (to my knowledge) and they hire artists (Mark Wilkinson and Hugh Syme as examples) to ACTUALLY do the art, but they are involved in the concept, layout, content, and final look of the artwork. They don't actually build and wire their rigs either (to my knowledge) but I'd be very very very surprised if there was a pedal in JPs rig that he hasn't asked for and approved.
I am not at all suggesting that they ACTUALLY master the material, but - and I'm trying to be funny here, not offensive - if some idiot on a message board sitting in his mom's basement can decide that "this sounds like shit", I'm pretty confident that Jordan Rudess can arrive at the same conclusion, and can figure out a way to go to the masterer or the label contact or the manager and say "Guys...". ;)
If they can pick the producer - and if they have enough clout to say "we're producing this ourselves", you don't think they have the clout to say "we want to try a different masterer; Ted Jensen is great, but we want some new blood". They did this with producers, keyboard players, engineers, and mixers... but masterers are somehow untouchable?
On a much smaller scale, I play music in my church band. At various times I play guitar or drums, and often sing as well. But I don't have anything to do with how the band sounds to the audience. That's not my job. It's the sound man's job. He mixes the sound, not me.
If something sounds off to me through the monitor mix, I try to describe what I'm hearing, and then he messes around with levels and EQ and effects until he gets it right. That's what he does. I just play and sing.
But you just made my point for me: if you don't like something you bring it to someone's attention. I have played in bands as well (I Mum'ed in Philly for several years). I wasn't the main guy, so I didn't have veto power, but my musical director did, and while he didn't play every instrument and didn't know how to get every sound, if he wasn't getting the sound he wanted, we didn't play another note.
Again, I'm not saying that JP and JR have to actually do the mastering; but if it isn't to their satisfaction, they have recourse to have it redone. Or go on record as having been dissatisfied with how it turned out. We all know JP is no pussy; he has expressed dissatisfaction with others in the chain of music production. Why not masterers?
-
Because the sound is what it is.
I don't have a huge problem with DT12, although it is very loud. But the best sounding albums, by and large, were the ones before they started self-producing. Which indicates that they just aren't as good at that. IMO, the only really good sounding album from the self-producing era is 6DOIT. I have no idea why they haven't continued to do things the way they were done on that album.
Not sure about how saying they have "control" over the album art works in your favor, because by and large, the album covers aren't great either.
-
I basically agree with this. If a production style (including overly loud/compressed) is an artist's intention/vision, that's fine. However, when JP spoke about how exciting the HDtracks releases were, he said something about it being great to have them in the un-mastered HD quality that they get in the studio. Which strongly suggests that what the band hears is pre-mastering. So I doubt the band is really aware of the problem.
Honest question: doesn't this ("[It is] great to have them in the un-mastered HD quality") kind of strongly imply that they ARE aware of the condition (I don't call it a "problem")? Doesn't saying it is great to have them un-mastered require a comparison to the mastered state?
That depends on whether he has actually heard (properly heard, that is) the final mastered version. He may well have not really paid attention to it, thinking that the difference is minor and that the exciting thing is the High Definition (which, as many have pointed out, the human ear pretty much can't distinguish anyway).
My point was more that the version that he and the band get to hear seems to be what they have in the studio, i.e. pre-mastering. In which case, it's quite possible that they simply haven't heard the final mastered version. It would only really be if they've gone out of their way to check out the final version that they'd know. Which some artists would absolutely certainly do, but with DT I get the impression they approach it quite a lot as hef has described - we're the musicians, but the sound engineer deals with the technical side of recording everything because that's his job, and the people who sort out the mastering do that because that's their job.
-
While the band is recording the album, they're hearing it through studio monitors before being mastered. After being send the master, they're probably checking it out on their own equipment in their cars or on their home stereos; average situations where it probably sounds fine.
I don't think most of the band would be too vocal about not being 100% happy with it, judging by their easy going personalities. JP is the producer, so he probably has final say on it, and I doubt he'd have any issues with the way the guitars sound. MM has said he's not completely happy with how the drums sound. Could he have said something along the way? Sure, but he went along with the artistic choices of others. Just because an album ended up the way it did, doesn't mean it represents 100% freedom from all parties. Any group endeavor is a compromise.
As has been said many times, they're not mastering engineers, they're professional musicians.
-
I think a key point is also, look at how the album was perceived in this forum. When the CD came out, the forum was full of love for the album. A few weeks later people started saying "you know, the album is kinda tiring to listen to. It had little replay value, I barely listen to it at this point."
So, when JP receives the final CD, he puts it into his car stereo, and his initial reaction will be like ours: Lots of punch, and really in your face. But, after that he will likely not have listened to the CD.
And to corroborate this notion, there's an interview with Jim Matheos where he says he never listens to his music after it's done. I see no reason to assume JP is any different. I have only recorded one album in my life so far, but I also only listened to it once after it was produced. Many many years later I did again of course.
-
Yeah, I don't reall yhave any problem with the mix, which seems to be what Reap is talking about. It's the mastering that is the problem on the regular version. As someone else said, the HDtracks version mostly removes this problem and is certainly not a sonic failure.
I checked out the HDtracks clips and the difference is pretty clear. So, if you want to talk about the mastering, DT12 definitely isn't what it could be.
EDIT: Crucially, one of the worst flaws in the CD master (the overcompressed cymbals) is a lot better.
-
Because the sound is what it is.
I don't have a huge problem with DT12, although it is very loud. But the best sounding albums, by and large, were the ones before they started self-producing. Which indicates that they just aren't as good at that. IMO, the only really good sounding album from the self-producing era is 6DOIT. I have no idea why they haven't continued to do things the way they were done on that album.
Not sure about how saying they have "control" over the album art works in your favor, because by and large, the album covers aren't great either.
But Hef, and I say this with deep respect, what you think is "good" is immaterial. There is no "in [my] favor". What is this "good" you speak of? They have final say on the art, and many fans don't like it. So what? My premise is that regardless of whether the fanbase likes them better or not, the albums with JP&MP (and later, just JP) are closer to what the band intends. They INTEND for them to be loud. We can complain about how they sound all day long (and for the record, ADTOE is not in my top five "favorite sounding DT albums") but I think the evidence shows they WANT - or at least accept - them that way.
-
stadler, I think you're confusing someone's ignorance of a thing with their explicit approval of it. Since Hef brought it up, I don't think they have *any* influence on the visuals these days. I think they see the stuff the first time when they hold the album in their hands.
And equally, I would not be surprised if JP views the mastering the album as a "post-processing" step that he isn't too much involved with. RR sends the mix to some guy who masters it, and then he hears the final product when he pops in the CD.
EDIT: Just found the JP quote that was mentioned by others:
https://www.facebook.com/johnpetrucciFB/posts/631908600194489
In case you can't open it, it's a link to HDTracks with him saying "This is what it sounded like as it was playing back in the mix studio. I think all music should be offered in HD!"
I don't know what to make of that. Isn't he saying "this is what our album should have sounded like but it doesn't"?
Additionally, I get the impression he thinks CDs can't be HD. That would further corroborate that he understands little of sound production.
-
Because the sound is what it is.
I don't have a huge problem with DT12, although it is very loud. But the best sounding albums, by and large, were the ones before they started self-producing. Which indicates that they just aren't as good at that. IMO, the only really good sounding album from the self-producing era is 6DOIT. I have no idea why they haven't continued to do things the way they were done on that album.
Not sure about how saying they have "control" over the album art works in your favor, because by and large, the album covers aren't great either.
But Hef, and I say this with deep respect, what you think is "good" is immaterial. There is no "in [my] favor". What is this "good" you speak of? They have final say on the art, and many fans don't like it. So what? My premise is that regardless of whether the fanbase likes them better or not, the albums with JP&MP (and later, just JP) are closer to what the band intends. They INTEND for them to be loud. We can complain about how they sound all day long (and for the record, ADTOE is not in my top five "favorite sounding DT albums") but I think the evidence shows they WANT - or at least accept - them that way.
I don't think it shows any such thing. The only reason they wanted to become producers in the first place was so that no one else could tell them what to do, from a creative standpoint. Now, since they are self-produced, they can write whatever they want, and no outside producer can tell them to cut this section or make this section longer or lose this bebot solo. That's why they are self-produced, it's not because they are sonic geniuses or because they had a vision for their albums to be louder than they were before.
-
I would say the best way to send a message to DT is to stop buying the CDs and buy HDTracks, but there are probably a large chunk of fans that don't even know about HDTracks.
BTW, those loud TV commercials. Those are on purpose as well, and as a consumer, we have a right to bitch about them.
-
That FB post by JP actually had a surprising amount of flak in the comments. The most-liked comment was essentially a summary of our opinions here.
-
As with all speculation, we'll have to agree to disagree. I find it an incredibly illogical and unlikely proposition - colored by personal tastes - but nonetheless, it's certainly an opinion shared by many. And make no mistake: you guys might actually end up being right. I'm not really saying you are wrong, just I don't understand how you get there without some better corroboration from the artist(s).
-
As with all speculation, we'll have to agree to disagree. I find it an incredibly illogical and unlikely proposition - colored by personal tastes - but nonetheless, it's certainly an opinion shared by many.
That's fine. FWIW, I find your position also illogical and unlikely.
-
I find it an incredibly illogical and unlikely proposition
Really?
We know that people from the band publicly said that they were not going to be taken in by the loudness war. We then know that DT12 (CD version) is the loudest and most overly-compressed album they have made.
I would say that the fact that DT didn't realise what the mastering was doing to the sound is the most logical explanation, given this sequence of events. The main alternative is that they are entirely involved in every stage of the process and definitely heard the final CD version in advance and signed off on it. If that's the case, then either (a) previous comments about the loudness war were just a load of hot air, or (b) they genuinely don't know about compression and sound quality and don't realise how bad DT12 is.
Now, those are for sure possible. But in my opinion the more likely one is that they left that stuff to someone else and weren't aware of how it sounded before it was released.
-
I find it an incredibly illogical and unlikely proposition
Really?
We know that people from the band publicly said that they were not going to be taken in by the loudness war. We then know that DT12 (CD version) is the loudest and most overly-compressed album they have made.
I would say that the fact that DT didn't realise what the mastering was doing to the sound is the most logical explanation, given this sequence of events. The main alternative is that they are entirely involved in every stage of the process and definitely heard the final CD version in advance and signed off on it. If that's the case, then either (a) previous comments about the loudness war were just a load of hot air, or (b) they genuinely don't know about compression and sound quality and don't realise how bad DT12 is.
Now, those are for sure possible. But in my opinion the more likely one is that they left that stuff to someone else and weren't aware of how it sounded before it was released.
Exactly.
But whatever.
-
BTW, somebody had asked for ToT in the graph (I think with the theory that maybe it's just the hard-hitting songs of DT12 that shift it to the right)
(https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/rumborak/tot_zpsd6bb205b.png)
ToT is similar to DT12 in the lack of soft parts, but DT12 still clearly has a solid shift to the right in it. DT12 and SC still stand alone in terms of loudness.
But in my opinion the more likely one is that they left that stuff to someone else and weren't aware of how it sounded before it was released.
I just also find any other theory not being "squarable" with JP's quote above. "I think all audio should be released in HD". The only way I can interpret this is that DT12 was not released the way *he* would want to listen to it.
-
FWIW, I find your position also illogical
I ask this for my benefit, but how so? I'll give you the "unlikely", since we have no way of knowing until they tell us, but illogical?
-
I find it an incredibly illogical and unlikely proposition
Really?
We know that people from the band publicly said that they were not going to be taken in by the loudness war. We then know that DT12 (CD version) is the loudest and most overly-compressed album they have made.
Do we know for sure that "not going to be taken in" means they weren't going to compress the hell out of stuff or that they weren't going to worry about all the guff from a small sector of their audience that bitched about the sound? In other words, "not going to be taken in" doesn't really indicate which side they are on from the start. And that DT12 is the loudest and most overly compressed album they ever made, doesn't logic point to the latter?
I would say that the fact that DT didn't realise what the mastering was doing to the sound is the most logical explanation, given this sequence of events. The main alternative is that they are entirely involved in every stage of the process and definitely heard the final CD version in advance and signed off on it. If that's the case, then either (a) previous comments about the loudness war were just a load of hot air, or (b) they genuinely don't know about compression and sound quality and don't realise how bad DT12 is.
Why does your definition of "bad" have to apply to them? Look at it from their perspective. What's the number of people that actually care? Isn't this akin to Genesis having to listen to 5% of their audience say "play the old stuff" while they were selling out multiple nights at stadia playing "Illegal Alien"? I guess I'm not letting this go, because just about every post that has an "A" and a "B" choice seems to disregard that they DO know what their OWN CD sounds like and are okay with it.
How can they not hear their own music before it is released? How about all those times Mike showed up at Ed Trunk's studio and gave him an advance copy of something he was playing on? And there's a great thought right there: you don't think someone like Eddie Trunk wouldn't pull JP or MP or someone aside and say "Bro, your disk sounds like SHIT. Next time, get involved more."?
-
As with all speculation, we'll have to agree to disagree.
I'm going to rest with this. I think everyone on this side has expressed their reasons pretty clearly. If you don't agree, OK. But this is getting tiresome.
-
When the CD came out, the forum was full of love for the album. A few weeks later people started saying "you know, the album is kinda tiring to listen to. It had little replay value, I barely listen to it at this point."
I disagree with that observation and definitely wouldn't draw any conclusions based on it, as it's way too subjective and biased. The way I perceived it, there were a few vocal opinions like that (which often tend to stand out), but I remember having a poll a couple of months after the release and above 80% ranked the album as "one of DT's best" or "very strong."
-
When the CD came out, the forum was full of love for the album. A few weeks later people started saying "you know, the album is kinda tiring to listen to. It had little replay value, I barely listen to it at this point."
I disagree with that observation and definitely wouldn't draw any conclusions based on it, as it's way too subjective and biased. The way I perceived it, there were a few vocal opinions like that (which often tend to stand out), but I remember having a poll a couple of months after the release and above 80% ranked the album as "one of DT's best" or "very strong."
Yeah RIGHT from the start people (in general) liked the album but were commenting on the sound and how it was tiring to listen to. Subsequent polls at various points after that never really changed from what I noticed.
-
Is DT12 considered in the top half of DT albums here? I wouldn't think so generally based on other people I've talked to, but I'd expect things to be a bit more positive here (though I still would be surprised to see DT12 ranked very highly).
-
BTW, somebody had asked for ToT in the graph (I think with the theory that maybe it's just the hard-hitting songs of DT12 that shift it to the right)
(https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/rumborak/tot_zpsd6bb205b.png)
ToT is similar to DT12 in the lack of soft parts, but DT12 still clearly has a solid shift to the right in it. DT12 and SC still stand alone in terms of loudness.
Thanks, rumbo. So the loudness is a combination of both. Shift to the metal sound (so we can use the ToT graph as some sort of baseline of where a predominantly metal-sounding album would generally be placed) and the compression (which shifted SC and DT to the right of ToT).
-
You know, weirdly, initially I was going to reply "yeah, I can probably agree with that", but while I was writing it, I realized that I have a hard time putting DT12 into the same bracket (stylistically) as ToT.
Like, ToT was DT's Adrenaline Mob album. Balls to the wall, heavy hitting. DT12, in my book, is not that. Take for example AFTR. It's *supposed* to be the soft tune on the album, but it simply can't because it's so brickwalled.
So, in my opinion, the reason why ToT and DT12 look somewhat close to each other is because ToT was a hard-hitting album in an area of good production, whereas DT12 is a varied album in the age of terrible production.
-
Hahaha. Well, I think I also agree with that now that you said it. But we are not sure where AFTR is in that graph right? It might be at the lower half of the DT curve (which is still loud as it is already at the upper half of the ToT curve). So yeah, you are right. DT the album is pretty loud, because it still ended up at the right of the ToT curve, even if, stylistically, ToT is generally more hard hitting.
On another note, I am now comparing FII, I&W and ToT. Are the graphs showing us that the spread of FII is not really about dynamic range but more about variety of songs? It appears that the kurtosis of the curves is more of a function of homogeneity in styles of songs, so I&W and ToT has a higher kurtosis than FII.
-
I see what you're saying, but my take on all this is, DT has kinda been writing to the same playbook for a long time now. With the exception of maybe ToT, they've done an almost scripted "couple of hard hitters, couple of ballads, one epic..." approach to their albums. Singling out albums, other than ToT, is stretched, IMO.
To do a direct comparison, to me songwriting-wise AFTR and Take Away My Pain are very similar songs. Long, straight vocals, actually rather dominant guitar lines, and busy drums. The audio representation of the two could not be more different. In fact, I'm quite tempted to create a graph just for those two.
-
That comparison would be very illuminating. :D
-
DO IT
-
*waits patiently* :coolio
-
(https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/rumborak/aftr_tamp_zps83266ed3.png)
Probably not too surprising a graph :lol
I think it drive home the point that in DT12 there is essentially no mid-range dynamic. It's either super-soft, or super-loud.
(btw, I'm now normalizing the y-axis by the length of each track now. That's why the values are so small now)
-
Yeah, I don't get where the idea that DT12 is super heavy came from. Not only is it not close to TOT, it's nowhere near SC or BCSL in terms of heaviness either. TEI is definitely heavy, and there are some heavy moments in EM, BTV, and IT, but the rest of the album is closer to the FII/8V dynamic than anything else in the discography. I don't think it's just the mastering that gives this extra illusion of heaviness--it's also the snare and the loud guitars.
-
Yeah, I don't get where the idea that DT12 is super heavy came from. Not only is it not close to TOT, it's nowhere near SC or BCSL in terms of heaviness either. TEI is definitely heavy, and there are some heavy moments in EM, BTV, and IT, but the rest of the album is closer to the FII/8V dynamic than anything else in the discography. I don't think it's just the mastering that gives this extra illusion of heaviness--it's also the snare and the loud guitars.
The songs aren't composed to be heavy in style, but the arrangements and mixing are very heavy, with heavy guitar everywhere, and constant pounding drums, instead of letting the songs breathe, and it's not even comparable to the subtlety and dynamics of FII imo.
Much of the problem is the heavy mix and sounds they used, but I think it's also to do with the composition. There are moments when the songs could have benefited from not having guitar at all, or using a variety of sounds instead of the same rich chocolate cake every time. And a more dynamic drum sound would have allowed an intensity that reflects each song/section, rather than sounding like the drums are always being hit 100%. I recall MM said that the drum sound affected how he wrote and performed his parts.
Even look at the softer ballad of AFTR. Once the band comes in, it's just full on the entire time. Heavy guitar chords and riffs drowning out everything, and that drum sound doesn't allow any softness. It sounds like a metal cover of a ballad, instead of sounding like a ballad.
-
(https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/rumborak/hd_zps0f983cc9.png)
Crazy.
-
Extremely telling.
-
Hmm. So the higher spikes were just averaged out because they were so quick (like the snap of a snare)?
I wish they would just release the dynamic versions. Most hardware players have some sort of loudness button, Replay Gain, leveling feature. The problem is you can take a dynamic version and compress/squeeze it to have the loudness factor for noisy listening environments. But you can't go the other direction.
-
The graph changed. Doesn't the red (non-HD) actually have a wider dynamic range spread?
-
The graph changed. Doesn't the red (non-HD) actually have a wider dynamic range spread?
Sorry, yeah, the scaling of the two graphs was difficult because the HDTracks have no gaps, whereas the non-HD does. That rescaled the two funny, which I now fixed.
-
Is that graph taking into account the different bit rate of the HD version? It looks too different.
-
I dowbsampled both to the same bit rate and bit depth.
And, doing the A/B comparison, I actually don't think it's off. I had to immediately reach for the volume knob when I put on the non-HD version.
-
There is an obvious difference in the volume of the two, I guess it's just not a graph comparison I'm used to seeing.
-
I wish they would just release the dynamic versions. Most hardware players have some sort of loudness button, Replay Gain, leveling feature. The problem is you can take a dynamic version and compress/squeeze it to have the loudness factor for noisy listening environments. But you can't go the other direction.
I think the issue is that most listeners have no idea how to do that. For right or wrong (it's wrong, but...), I suppose the people who are doing this are assuming that it's better to have Joe Schmoe be able to hear the music through his Apple earbuds while riding on the subway than to appease what is probably a minority group of people who are conscious of and bothered by the loudness. Now, the thing is, Apple does provide on the iPhone what is as near as I can tell something to boost loudness. So, I assume, does Android. But in order to get to that, Joe Schmoe has to know what he's doing. It's located deep in the music player settings under a long list of various things titled simply "EQ."
(https://imgur.com/peBDTAV.jpg)
I would have no idea what I was looking for if I didn't know what loudness was. I would have no idea even to look for something if I didn't know what loudness was. So that's the problem, I suppose, in the eyes of some the people compressing things.
If Apple and other smartphone software designers were to place some sort of Loudness toggle right in the music player and made it clear to the general public that you can use that when you're on public transportation and there's a lot of ambient noise, but that it reduces audio quality, then the excuse would go away. But I highly doubt that the loudness war is on the radar of most software designers. Plus, the situation I am describing is a chicken/egg situation: there'd be little point in making an easily accessible loudness toggle unless a significant amount of popular music started being released in much more dynamic versions, and it would be unlikely that that would be done without an easy way for the common user to change the loudness.
-
Apple devices use a ReplayGain-esque thing called Sound Check to level out loudness so it's the same across playback for your whole library. unfortunately, it's track-based, so it'll throw off transitions on continuous albums... and i've noticed it sometimes gets the volume wrong (i don't think it accounts for the Fletcher-Munson curve, so it doesn't focus on the frequencies we hear best, just overall volume).
there's also a feature in the Info dialog box on iTunes that lets you adjust the volume of every song during playback.
-
The graph changed. Doesn't the red (non-HD) actually have a wider dynamic range spread?
You know, I've only been listening to the HDTracks now for the first time, and yeah, to be perfectly honest, I think they do not all much more than pulling down the volume overall. The audio is still over-crowded and wall-of-soundy, just at a different volume level. That volume level is a better operating point, sure, but as you say, the dynamic range itself didn't increase at all. That new headroom they got, is totally unused.
EDIT: You know, I just compared direct waveforms between HD and non-HD. I am pretty sure they did nothing but pull down the volume, and then upsample the signal.
-
Apple devices use a ReplayGain-esque thing called Sound Check to level out loudness so it's the same across playback for your whole library. unfortunately, it's track-based, so it'll throw off transitions on continuous albums... and i've noticed it sometimes gets the volume wrong (i don't think it accounts for the Fletcher-Munson curve, so it doesn't focus on the frequencies we hear best, just overall volume).
there's also a feature in the Info dialog box on iTunes that lets you adjust the volume of every song during playback.
Yeah, but Sound Check is optional and off by default (thankfully, for people like me). Anyone who doesn't know or care much about sound quality isn't going to know or care what Sound Check is.
What I'm saying is that much of the justification for compressing albums—or, at least, the only use case where compressed music sounds better than uncompressed music—is when you're listening in a loud place (like public transit) without noise-reducing headphones or earphones. And many of the people who are doing that are people who don't know what things like compression or loudness—in the context of mastering—mean. That's a big part of the idea behind that. If you're in a subway during rush hour listening to music on your little white plastic earbuds, DT12 CD version is going to sound better than DT12 HDTracks because it's louder. And that's the only time it'll sound better. I'm saying it would help immensely if it was easy and intuitive for Joe Schmoe who doesn't know anything about engineering to switch on and off some form of audio compression. If there was an easy-to-access toggle for something like "Loud Room Mode" (obviously it could have a better name but something that is that obvious to the layperson as to what it means) that would turn on a form of audio compression, that would take away the last remaining advantage of just making everything compressed always.
-
It wouldn't need to be a toggle. The smartphone could detect the level of ambient noise, and adjust the compression on the fly.
-
That would be pretty cool. However, I would want the option for it to not do that, somewhere in the settings. Maybe what you're talking about could be a system that is on by default, since the average user would want it on, but could be turned off somewhere in the settings.
-
(https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v410/rumborak/hdtracks_zps8d200d65.png)
(above CD, below HD Tracks)
Ok ... this is a kinda sad post, because it shows that the HDTracks are actually a sham. Yes, they no longer clip like the CD version, but there is no "remastering". They are the same signal. (Compare the peaks and troughs, they correspond 1:1). All they did was to pull the volume down, and because of that it clips less.
-
... that's not a "sham." it would be if it was the same clipped master with the volume reduced, but it's clearly not – the limiter is only compressing, say, 2-3 dB instead of 8 or 9 like the CD master. you can't change that without using the final mix and mastering it differently. if one did, say by applying some EQ changes to the CD master, the clipped peaks would get stretched diagonally, but would still clearly be lopped off.
also, the frequency analysis of the HDTracks version shows it's legitimately a higher sample rate.
not defending the lifeless mix or lack of dynamics, though.
-
I was under the impression the idea about DT12's HDTracks is that they went back to the original and remastered it. I mean, no offense, this will have taken the guy 5 minutes to do. He brought up the studio project, pulled down the master volume by a few dB, exported it to WAV, and that was it.
-
I thought that DT's HD Tracks were merely unmastered, not remastered.
-
I think I would call unmastered "remastered" :lol
The point is, other than a volume reduction, which moved it out of the clipping range, HDTracks did nothing to the signal. No offense, but that's not $20 worth.
Should the CD have been like HDTracks in terms of volume? Absolutely, because the clipping on the CD is not good. But, both versions are still brickwalled. I was hoping the HDTracks was better in that regard, but as mentioned, it's nothing but the CD version with slightly lower volume.
-
It appears you're right. The HDTracks version still sounds very compressed, but it sounded less compressed to me, with more clarity in the drums/cymbals, and more separation between instruments. I can't believe that was all pure clipping. It looks like the CD version is literally double the volume, with everything hard clipped off above the maximum.
-
There is a chance the compression was introduced during the initial recording stages. You can't really fix that. Well, they might be able to, but it would probably be the equivalent to putting color on black and white movies.
-
You'd have to seriously mess up recording an entire album like that, and it would mix differently to doing it after the fact. Given that this is the CD release, it's no doubt just the regular mastering compression. No brainer.
-
They probably mixed the song into a compressor, and overdid the compression. In that case, remastering would not fix that. There are ways that remastering can make the song more dynamic, but not return it to what it sounded like prior to mix compression.
-
I'm not sure how you've reached that conclusion, Rumby. If it's because the volume gets louder and quieter in all the same places, then that's surely because it's still all the same notes and the mix wasn't changed.
-
I'm not sure how you've reached that conclusion, Rumby. If it's because the volume gets louder and quieter in all the same places, then that's surely because it's still all the same notes and the mix wasn't changed.
I did a comparison myself, and overlaid the two waveforms, scaling the CD version to match the HDTracks version, and they're exactly the same.
If they were using different masters, yes they'd still follow the exact same pattern of loud/soft, but the waveforms wouldn't align due to compression changing the shape of the waveform, because compression is a non-linear amplification.
-
I haven't listened to the HDTracks version, but it's probable that both mastering engineers in the CD and HDTracks version found the mix to be too compressed already so they opted to not compress the master. So the two versions would look more or less the same when you look at the waveform
Or the Hdtracks version is the the same version as the cd, but just before the limiter. In that case, it's not the exactly the same as just pulling the volume down, but calling it "remastered", would be a stretch, I agree.
-
I'm not sure how you've reached that conclusion, Rumby. If it's because the volume gets louder and quieter in all the same places, then that's surely because it's still all the same notes and the mix wasn't changed.
I did a comparison myself, and overlaid the two waveforms, scaling the CD version to match the HDTracks version, and they're exactly the same.
If they were using different masters, yes they'd still follow the exact same pattern of loud/soft, but the waveforms wouldn't align due to compression changing the shape of the waveform, because compression is a non-linear amplification.
Yeah, that's what I'm basing my conclusion on as well. A differently mastered version would (obviously) have at least slightly different waveforms. When you have identical waveforms (save the scale factor), you just have the same signal.
-
HDTracks never did claim that it used a different master, right? Who made the claim tjat it is a remaster? Not them. Calling them a sham is inaccurate because all they really claim is that they are the best sounding digital music download. From the site:
"HDtracks offers music lovers the highest-quality downloads available anywhere on the web. Many digital music stores only offer heavily compressed MP3 files. When you purchase an HDtracks file, it is the same quality as a store-purchased CD. HDtracks downloads will play with no DRM on any device. In addition, HDtracks is the only site to offer full cover art and liner notes in pdf format."
-
I thought we already knew that it was simply not mastered, and not a remaster? I am sure I remember that being discussed all the way back in 2013 or whenever HDTracks put the album up for download.
HDTracks has only ever promised "high resolution files" as far as I recall. Sometimes they're remastered, sometimes they're not mastered at all, and most of the time they're the same master as the CD. In any case, DT12 HDTracks still sounds better than the CD even if it isn't a remaster.
-
I think a lot of people in this forum, at least at this point, were under the impression that the HDTracks version of DT12 were *substantially* different from the CD version. I don't think people were aware that all they got is a slightly less clipping version of the same thing.
HDTracks is of course intentionally vague on the matter. For some select albums in the past they've actually done a great job (e.g. going back to the original tapes etc), and now they're riding those laurels by giving the (implicit) impression that other albums will have gotten the same thorough treatment.
-
I thought we already knew that it was simply not mastered, and not a remaster? I am sure I remember that being discussed all the way back in 2013 or whenever HDTracks put the album up for download.
By the better sound quality, we theorized/assumed it was not mastered, but now it appears it is still mastered, at least the compression stage, but not limited.
-
I think a lot of people in this forum, at least at this point, were under the impression that the HDTracks version of DT12 were *substantially* different from the CD version. I don't think people were aware that all they got is a slightly less clipping version of the same thing.
HDTracks is of course intentionally vague on the matter. For some select albums in the past they've actually done a great job (e.g. going back to the original tapes etc), and now they're riding those laurels by giving the (implicit) impression that other albums will have gotten the same thorough treatment.
I don't know how HDTracks was intentionally vague on the matter when all they claimed is studio quality sound. Even John Petrucci, whose post was often cited here, never made a claim that it is mastered differently from the CD:
"This is what it sounded like as it was playing back in the mix studio. I think all music should be offered in HD!"
No claim of a different mastering that was done. Still, they gave us a different master anyway. I don't think anybody with a clear hearing would say that the HD Tracks version does not have clearer cymbals and more separation between the instruments than the CD version. You can hear it.
-
No offense erwin, but I don't get the impression you know what a master is. This is the *same* master, as both Blob and I independently established. The only difference is a decrease in volume, which reduced clipping. That reduced clipping is likely the cause for the improved cymbal sound.
Regarding the "improved separation between instruments", if you could explain to me how the same audio signal (disregarding the clipping) can sound differently? The difference between the two is the same difference as standing 5 feet or 10 feet away from your speakers. Do you hear more separation when you step away from your speakers?
Frankly, I think a lot of the alleged improvements are really placebo.
-
Like Blob said, the difference is probably that they took off the hard limiting for the HDTracks release, which would explain a lot of the improvement in sound quality that's still there.
-
No offense erwin, but I don't get the impression you know what a master is. This is the *same* master, as both Blob and I independently established. The only difference is a decrease in volume, which reduced clipping. That reduced clipping is likely the cause for the improved cymbal sound.
Regarding the "improved separation between instruments", if you could explain to me how the same audio signal (disregarding the clipping) can sound differently? The difference between the two is the same difference as standing 5 feet or 10 feet away from your speakers. Do you hear more separation when you step away from your speakers?
Frankly, I think a lot of the alleged improvements are really placebo.
I may be misusing some of the terms but I know what a master is. What I meant is that they used a different, less loud version for the HD Tracks instead of the loud CD version, even if HDTracks really only promises a CD quality version.
For the placebo effect, it is possible, but I trust what I am hearing when I play back to back the HD Tracks version (at a volume level of 50) and the CD version (at a volume level of 34). And when I say I hear more separation, I actually meant that I hear more cymbals and keyboards. So I maybe misusing the term separation again.
How about you rumbo? The graphs notwithstanding, don't you hear any difference?
-
I'll say that this finding is a bit disappointing, but it doesn't change the fact that the HDTracks sounds much better to me due to the lack of clipping. For me, I think it was worth the $20 for that.
I kind of had my suspicions in the back of my head, actually, relating to the other albums' HDTracks. BCSL and ADTOE don't sound that much different, just quieter, while SC is a marked improvement like DT12 that could probably be explained by they pulled the volume down thus reducing clipping. I'd confirm this, since I have all four, but I lack the necessary expertise. I'd imagine that it's the case though. I would still recommend the SC and DT12 HDTracks to anyone who gets fatigued by the CD versions, but would say that BCSL and ADTOE are probably not worth it.
-
It's also really not all that surprising. Remastering an album from the original mix is quite the undertaking, and would only ever be possible for a few select bands/albums. Whereas, just grabbing the final master and doing a bit of volume lowering, that's something easily done.
-
Whereas, just grabbing the final master and doing a bit of volume lowering, that's something easily done.
Well, no they wouldn't do it that way, because you'd still have the clipping presumably. It strikes me that more likely is that (as many have suggested right from the start) some level of mastering was done as part of the mix, with compression applied to individual tracks. The overall mastering would therefore be simply a case of pushing the volume up. Taking that away still makes a big difference to the sound.
-
To get a bit more technical, I distinguish between mastering and exporting here.
Mastering, in my book, is the (somewhat) artistic process of applying EQs and compressors/expanders in order to level out the frequency spectrum.
Exporting is the final step where you convert the software's internal representation of the audio (usually floating point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_bit_depth#Floating_point) these days).
In my interpretation this happened:
1) DT records and mixes the album
2) The mix gets sent to mastering guy, who masters it
3) The (floating-point) master gets exported down to 44.1kHz, 16-bit for CD production
Now, the hard clipping got introduced in step 3, the exporting. Floating-point audio has no volume limitations, but when converting it to 16-bit audio, it had to clip certain samples because their values were too high.
HDTracks took the *same* master from after step 2), the one in floating-point. Then, it lowered the value of the master a bit, and instead of converting to 44kHz, 16-bit, converted down to 96kHz/24-bit. The volume decrease meant that fewer samples clipped, but otherwise it is exactly the same source master.
-
I don't quite agree. The HD tracks clearly have less compression on them. It's not just an issue of changing volume. The aesthetics of the mix are different. Plus, like shown at the beginning, the CD masters are brickwalled and the HDTracks have at least a little room to breath.
I'm not saying the HDTracks are necessarily a big enough improvement to justify paying 20 dollars for them. Especially given that all that was done to produce them was probably taking whatever limiting plugin was used and simply change the input gain volume to something lower. But it wasn't just a volume change.
-
Reapsta, this isn't exactly a matter of taste. The waveforms are the same, except the scale factor. When the waveforms are the same shape, it is exactly the same signal (except the clipping, as mentioned).
That said, it is hard to judge what effect the clipping had on the CD version. I can totally see how overall intelligibility of the music increased by no longer clipping.
-
going by a graph of sample volume also shows a single dimension of a multidimensional object – akin to judging, say, a photo of a 3-dimensional sculpture. looking at sample volume does not account for how we hear volume, which is frequency-dependent; limiters, whether analog or digital, apply a lot more than just volume compression and makeup gain. each has a sonic character in the frequency domain as well.
that's why you get comments about better separation and clarity – if volume and compression were the issues alone, you wouldn't hear differences that are clearly frequency dependent (cymbal definition through the wall of guitar). it's also why it's woefully inadequate to compare it to keeping the clipped master and simply backing up from the speakers: this can't achieve the same result because the directionality of the speakers and the amplification of the frequency spectrum changes with distance, and even if you did account for this somehow, the source is fundamentally different because the speaker analogy only changes transients because of where you hear them from (and how the DAC interprets the samples that have been clipped off), rather than the HDTracks master having the unclipped transient intact.
every song definitely had a compressor on the master bus, which is why they still sound like a glued wall. those would be intact on the final mixes, so if the HDTracks source is actually pre-mastering altogether, it wouldn't avoid that processing.
also, the standard is 24bit for recording and mixing. some places may have moved to 32bit floating point but 24 more than accounts for quantization error, so using a multiplier is generally adding unnecessary file size without particularly needed benefit.
-
I don't quite agree. The HD tracks clearly have less compression on them. It's not just an issue of changing volume. The aesthetics of the mix are different. Plus, like shown at the beginning, the CD masters are brickwalled and the HDTracks have at least a little room to breath.
I'm not saying the HDTracks are necessarily a big enough improvement to justify paying 20 dollars for them. Especially given that all that was done to produce them was probably taking whatever limiting plugin was used and simply change the input gain volume to something lower. But it wasn't just a volume change.
20 dollars for HDTracks versus a crappy mp3 download. I would gladly pay. Especially as it is a fortune to get a physical CD shipped to our part of the world. Again, HD Tracks is marketed to those whose primary access to music is digital download. It was not really meant to compete against physical CDs.
-
Golly, there is a lot of confusion in this thread about what waveforms are and how they relate to the music we perceive.
seasonsinthesky, the waveform is the instruction to the cone of your speaker. High positive value = push out the membrane. Low negative value = pull the membrane in.
I would assume you agree that, if the waveforms are the same, then the movement of the speaker cone is the same, and thus the music *must* be the same.
-
Regarding the increased separation of instruments in the HD tracks version, I think it mainly has to do with the attack (the usually-louder initial few milliseconds of sound when you play something) of each of the instruments not getting squeezed to the same level as the body of sound by the limiter. So you get these little spikes in the waveform that correspond to the very first few milliseconds of individual notes. This is only somewhat true of the keyboards, as some sounds JR has programmed, like strings, are made so they fade in (albeit very quickly) when he plays a note.
-
As someone who has from near the very beginning been and still is a big proponent of the DT12 HDTracks, I don't get why rumborak is getting so much pushback. I think he's pretty well documented his claims.
And if you, like me, like the HDTracks much better than the CD version... Well, you still have them, they're still there, and rumbo's revelation about them does not change them one bit. I for one think they were still worth it.
-
Golly, there is a lot of confusion in this thread about what waveforms are and how they relate to the music we perceive.
seasonsinthesky, the waveform is the instruction to the cone of your speaker. High positive value = push out the membrane. Low negative value = pull the membrane in.
I would assume you agree that, if the waveforms are the same, then the movement of the speaker cone is the same, and thus the music *must* be the same.
Have you listened to the two versions and have you noticed any difference?
-
As someone who has from near the very beginning been and still is a big proponent of the DT12 HDTracks, I don't get why rumborak is getting so much pushback. I think he's pretty well documented his claims.
It is not a pushback. It is called a discussion. We're just trying to reconcile why we seem to be hearing a better sound from HD Tracks compared to the CD. If they did come from the same master, why does the other one sound better? Is it just a matter of lower volume? Of less clipping?
rumbo has forwarded also two debatable claims. that HD TRacks is a sham (to which I disagree because HD Tracks never claimed that they used a different master, so it is not a sham) and that the "improvement" may really just be a placebo effect (to which I am not sure because I have been testing the songs last night as I am reading the discussions, and I am really hearing better sound from the HD TRacks). So we're discussing things to find why we are hearing better sound. No pushback. Just discussion.
-
From where I'm sitting it looks like some people are contesting claims that rumbo has pretty well proven (and Blob has backed up) without providing any evidence of their own. And I'm also chipping in to remind everybody that both of these things can be true: 1) rumbo is right entirely on the facts of the situation and 2) the HDTracks is markedly superior and worth it.
-
Yeah. Rumby's right. Basically, the HDtracks sounds "better", but the album still sounds awful.
-
Golly, there is a lot of confusion in this thread about what waveforms are and how they relate to the music we perceive.
seasonsinthesky, the waveform is the instruction to the cone of your speaker. High positive value = push out the membrane. Low negative value = pull the membrane in.
I would assume you agree that, if the waveforms are the same, then the movement of the speaker cone is the same, and thus the music *must* be the same.
Well, I doubt many people here have much experience with recording audio. I do a bit of amateur recording, but I really don't know how to use compression well. When I see graphs like yours, I assume that in the flat lines near the top are areas where everything (low, high, and whatever) has been given a "flat" volume. On the HD tracks graph, it looks like the waveform cones up more where it's otherwise flat on the CD. That leads me to believe that it's not just someone turning the volume down, but more like someone simply opening up an earlier version of the master, before the louder portions of the audio were "flattened" so that the entire thing could be then boosted up.
Of course, I think you are right in general - these aren't "remasters", at bet, they're simply a few keystrokes apart from what's on the CD. But, really, I could just be revealing how little I know about compression here :P
-
From where I'm sitting it looks like some people are contesting claims that rumbo has pretty well proven (and Blob has backed up) without providing any evidence of their own. And I'm also chipping in to remind everybody that both of these things can be true: 1) rumbo is right entirely on the facts of the situation and 2) the HDTracks is markedly superior and worth it.
I didn't even believe rumby at first because I know the HDTracks does sound markedly different and better than the CD version. But the hard evidence backs up rumby's observation. So I agree that both of those points can be, and are true.
I think most people agree that the HDTracks version does sound better, we're really just debating the "why" now. This whole time we've assumed it was due to a different master with less compression, but it appears it is the same master with the same compression, but with less limiting in the final stage, which has still resulted in much less clipping, giving more separation between instruments due to having the full waveform to reconstruct those peaks. When you clip off those peaks, you permanently lose detail during those loud sections that affects everything.
-
Thing is, I don't think it matters. So people conflated two things into one by saying "mastering" when in fact this, according to Rumby, includes two separate parts - "mastering" and "exporting". And the problem is apparently with the latter.
Fine, then. I don't believe that changes anything. I didn't know that exporting was anything separate, but clearly it has a big impact on the sound quality. So if it's the exporting bit that sucks, then it's the exporting bit. It is still, clearly, a crucial part of the overall sound production, and therefore is still vastly improved by the HDtracks.
Sure, it's useful to understand why, and Rumby's analysis has been awesome. But he's also been suggesting that the HDtracks are a sham and a placebo effect, which I don't agree with at all. It's just a distinction over the different parts of the process and what they're called, that's all.
-
Yeah, the "sham" part was really mostly as a response to the prevailing idea that they used a different master.
The increased fidelity of the HDTracks apparently solely originates from the reduced amount of clipping (and maybe not surprising, since the CD version had rather egregious clipping).