In Reply to: A cruel irony, the earliest CDs are oft the best-sounding. posted by Geoffkait on September 4, 2024 at 11:55:25:
...with many modern digital recordings is that they absolutely waste the incredible dynamic range available.
LPs, open reels and cassette recordings were lucky to get 60 or 70 dB of dynamic range. CDs have 96 dB available and hi-rez recordings are well beyond that.
So what do we get with many modern digital recordings? Everything is compressed and crammed to the top. This is obviously true of many rock/pop recordings, but I also see it in some classical, jazz and other genres where you'd think they'd be thrilled to take advantage of the available dynamic range.
For example, years ago I transferred much of my LP collection to digital using Adobe Audition. For something like repetitive drum strikes, you'd see quite a bit of variance in the peak level of each strike. Fast forward to many new digital releases, and you'll find there is now incredible uniformity in the max level of drum hits. It's just not quite as lifelike.
Some of this is not surprising as most recordings are mixed for the masses who listen in cars or inexpensive stereos. Dynamic range is a negative under those conditions as the pianissimo portions get lost in the background noise.
While I find many of the earliest CDs rather shrill and hard sounding, there was a period in the early 1990s where some brilliant CDs were released that made full use of the available dynamic range and the "loudness wars" were still a few years off. As an example, one of my favorites was The Great American Main Street Band's "Silks and Rags" from 1991. Just a wonderful recording to listen to on a good system.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- One of the saddest things... - mlsstl 08:31:19 09/05/24 (0)