 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
196.3.50.254
In Reply to: $100 speakers best everything under $4K (except for playing classical) posted by TomLarson on April 30, 2007 at 16:53:19:
Yeah a speaker that sounds great as long as you don't put any music into it with a real dynamic range! Fortuneately, most pop music has almost none so these little drivers can handle it.
Follow Ups:
Classical music snobs always say pop music has no dynamic range. Pop music snobs always say classical music has no dynamic range.~ Cheers
Well I guess its fortunate that I like ALL kinds of music...both country and western!! LOL! Surely your joking Mr. Kait! It is well known what the record industry does to pop/rock music genres and increasingly with other genres like jazz.
Obviously, there's been some sort of mix-up and I did not receive the memo. BTW You may wish to consult an on-line dictionary when using the words "it's" and "you're" in the future. :-)
So all you can criticize is the typos...typical nonsense from you. There are plenty of resources on the web addressing this subject, I suggest you make use of them.
Actually, I was using your own common tactic of attacking dictionary related issues. Excellent reaction to some of your own medicine.
No you are simply dodging as usual and finding a point of contention rather than addressing the main point of discussion.
Sorry, wrong again. I already responded to your claim that classical music has greater dynamic range than popular music. Your argument went something like, "It is well known..."
"I already responded to your claim that classical music has greater dynamic range than popular music"Its not a claim Geoff, its a general fact and one that is easily verified. I have done so many times and there are plenty of resources on the web and elsewhere. Really you are just arguing for the sake of being a PIA. The point is that it IS well known and it is easily seen visually on a computer or with a VU meter.
So, now you're saying it's up to me to prove your broad, sweeping generalization? Sorry, Charlie...
http://www.austin360.com/music/content/music/stories/xl/2006/09/28cover.htmlhttp://georgegraham.com/compress.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/weekly_article/imperfect-sound-forever.htm
Thanks for the links.I especially like the following paragraph in the article you provided from Stylus Magazine:
"Don’t get me wrong; music sounds better loud. It’s more dynamic, more exciting, you can hear more detail, you get a better sense of space as instruments and sounds surround you and involve you (like a Taoist says, the space between the spokes is the most important part of the wheel—as it is with music), and the physical pleasure of feeling a ripple of bass run through your body simply can’t be beaten."
~ Cheers
This person obviously can't distinguish the difference between loudness and dynamics...the same problem you apparently have.
What you fail to grasp is that dynamics little to do with measurement of some technical parameter and everything to do with gut reaction.When attempting to proove your grand, sweeping generalizations, you would be well advised to select articles that support your position instead of refuting it. LOL
~ Cheerio!
"What you fail to grasp is that dynamics little to do with measurement of some technical parameter and everything to do with gut reaction"LOL! Actually this is exactly wrong. Dynamics is a well defined term so don't go making up new definitions on your own. The gut reaction you get from LIVE music is largely because of the wide dynamic range. Compression allows some cheating for systems that can't handle a really wide range. Playing heavily compressed LOUD recordings on a good stereo just gives you a headache after about 10 minutes. Hell, even good old Bob Dylan hears it correctly, he said that when the music is treated this way it sounds like static. Contrast is what gives impact, Geoff. The funny thing is that I think you know this already and just love to argue and be contentious, which makes you a schmuck.
"When attempting to proove your grand, sweeping generalizations, you would be well advised to select articles that support your position instead of refuting it. LOL"
I guess you were too illiterate to read the rest of the articles. They support my position just fine, including that there is no proof that people like louder better.
No reason to resort to name calling, just because you lost the argument. LOL If you would get your head out of the sand and stop relying on technical definitions from the dictionary, you might have a chance of escaping the world of the 1980s you apparently dwell in.Thanks for the lecture anyway. LOL
"An ordinary man has no means of deliverance." - W. Burroughs
"No reason to resort to name calling, just because you lost the argument. LOL"Ahh, so you admit that I won the argument? Thanks for that LOL at the end of the sentence to make it clear that what you said before was a big joke.
If you don't like the definition of terms then start your own language and make your own dictionary, otherwise try to stick with the language we are using. THere is a reason words have definitions, try to remember that.
"escaping the world of the 1980s you apparently dwell in"
Not exactly sure how any of my comments could be construed as living in the 1980s, afterall it is clear that the loudness/compression issue was not as severe then as it is now, so I would say that it is you who is living in the past thinking that pop recordings have some dynamics. I am living in the now and in the now they are compressed and boosted to the clipping point. You lose that point as well Geoff.
Your own evidence already proved your theory wrong, you just refuse to see the logic. As your evidence stated: Louder sounds subjectively more detailed AND more dynamic. You lose again. And the reason why the recording engineers are cutting CDs at higher levels? -- they sound better! Case closed.~ Cheerio
"Your own evidence already proved your theory wrong, you just refuse to see the logic. As your evidence stated: Louder sounds subjectively more detailed AND more dynamic"Nonsense. You pulled one quote (out of context I might add) out of all the other VOLUMES of evidence showing what a problem compression and loudness are causing with popular music. I win again.
"And the reason why the recording engineers are cutting CDs at higher levels? -- they sound better! Case closed."
Not so fast there Mr. Kait, those same engineers have this to say (god! having to quote to shut you up, but since you won't read them yourself...)
"First of all, let me point out that I am an audio engineer/producer as much as a music critic/reviewer. I had been doing music recording since back in high school in the mid 1960s, and I produce and engineer a lot of music, almost an album's worth of each week for the Homegrown Music series (probably well over 700 so far), and have also produced or engineered numerous CDs and LPs. In my capacity as a Public Radio producer, programmer and host, I get the opportunity both to evaluate and program music for radio audiences, and to produce it in the studio. As you can see from my album reviews and playlists, I get to audition a lot of records, and think I have formed a pretty good idea of what makes a record sound good and why."
"Where the current pressure is coming from is unclear, but several prominent mastering engineers have complained that they are being pushed to make the CDs they work on as loud as possible."See, being pushed to make them louder, ie. there is external pressure and not their choice.
"My CD player has a digital level display, and I am also able to take the digital output of a CD and run it into a computer editing system allowing statistical study of audio levels, and I am constantly appalled at how many CDs spent most of their time in the top 3-4 db of the 90 db available, with absolute digital maximum level being reached very frequently -- sometimes on every beat. Sophisticated digital compressors alleviate the all the horrible distortion that would normally happen from hitting the digital "brick wall," but nuances and the "airy" quality of the recording are murdered."
So clear evidence of what is being done to the cds. NO DYNAMIC RANGE. ALL DONE AT THE SAME LOUDNESS."The fallacy that seems to have become pervasive among many people in the pop music recording field, especially among record companies, is that if a CD is pushing the absolute digital max it will somehow be louder or better on the air and presumably win more airplay, and thus sell more copies to the public. This is not true at all. "
YOU SEE? IT IS A FALLACY TO BELIEVE THAT LOUDER IS BETTER. ALL THE SAME LOUDNESS IS BASICALLY LIKE NOISE.
"The only thing that is accomplished is messing up the dynamic range for those who pay their good money for CDs, "squashing" the life out of any acoustic instruments in the mix, and increasing listener fatigue."
NO LIFE, LISTENER FATIGUE? GEE THAT COULDN'T BE THE CASE WITH MR. KAITS POP RECORDINGS EVEN THOUGH HIS MUST HAVE TONS OF DYNAMIC RANGE, RIGHT MR. KAIT?"Compression is commonly used in the final mix, and this is where things can go seriously wrong - everything is at the same volume, peak to average ratio is minimal, and the resulting sound is almost always worse than it was before the compression was applied. Used correctly, a small amount of compression may be useful with some musical styles, but it is completely unsuited to others. I have several CDs that sound "exciting" at first, but the sameness of having a constant barrage of sound at the same level becomes extremely fatiguing in only a short time."
WELL,WHATABOUTTHISQUOTEMR. KAIT?CARETOCOMMENTONTHISONE?YOUSEEFORTHAONE COMMENTYOUDUGOUTOFWHATILINKEDTOTHEREAREABOUT50SAYINGTHEEXACTOPPOSITE ANDFROMENGINEERSANDPRODUCERSNOLESS.SOCLEARLYTHEREISABUSINESSCONCEPTAT WORKNOTRELATEDTOSOUNDQUALITY.CARETOEXPLAINTHESHARPDECLINEINCDSALES EVENBEFOREDOWNLOADINGOFFTHEINTERNETBECAMETHESTANDARD?MAYBEITWASTHE SOUNDOFTHECRAPPYPOPRECORDINGS?JUSTATHOUGHT...
ORTHISONE:
"I don't want it to be "hot", I want it to sound the way it should, with real dynamics, soft and loud passages, and things that make me jump! Fortunately, I am not alone, but unfortunately, record companies are still producing material for people with crap systems"
I guess he is referring to your system since you SEEM to get real dynamics from recordings that have none.
"Be that as it may, there is not really much point in setting up the "ultimate" hi-fi system, with headroom to spare and almost zero distortions of any kind, only to have the music CD pre-distorted, compressed, limited and bent so far out of shape that it is no longer useful for anything other than a coaster."
Nice final comment...got classical Mr. Kait??
Morricab, you certainly have a lot of pent-up angst and deep seated hang-ups. Have you ever thought of starting an audio version of Alcoholics Anonymous?
THanks Dr. Ruth! As usual a meaningless comeback why not just acknowledge you were wrong and thank me for showing you what harm they are doing to potentially great music.
Yawwwn. Thanks for trying to save the world from overly enthusiastic recording engineers.
Ahhh so now you agree that they are "over enthusiastic"! Great, I win!
I am not asking you to prove anything. I just said go look for yourself because it will become obvious when and if you bother to do so.The proof is out there in plenty of abundance all it requires is that you open your eyes.
Sure. That's because pop music snobs confuse dynamic range with loudness. (There are, admittedly, a few pop/rock recordings with wide dynamic range but they are uncommon.)Cheers.
| ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
