Jump to content

"Loudness War" and the Dynamic Range (DR) Database - some observations


Chris A

Recommended Posts

In the analog days there was a limit on how much compression and limiting could be used before audibly objectionable consequences would result. Too much compression and/or limiting would allow the bass notes to affect the high notes resulting in an effect known a "pumping" or "breathing".

Precisely, and that is why I believe that the giant record companies eventually adopted CD - they realized that they could "do want they wanted" with the format that they still can't do with vinyl. Over time, I believe that the record companies have also found out that they can command higher prices on vinyl and put out less compressed recordings in that format. (But note that this isn't uniformly the case. Some albums on vinyl are just as bad if not worse in terms of DR than their CD counterparts).

Note that some of this is documented in two or three books about the giant record corporations that I've recently read. You've heard the phrase, "sometimes the right things get done for the wrong reasons.."? In this case, it's more like "sometimes the wrong things get done for the wrong reasons".

Thanks for the info on the use of multi-band compressors - that's a subject that I've not paid much attention to.

Chris

Edited by Cask05
Link to comment
Share on other sites



I think I can shed some additional light on this subject.





I know some of you have heard this before but for basic
background credentials I’ll say it again. In 1983, about the time CD was going
to be introduced in the U.S.
my system was to be published in Stereo Review magazine. I got the bright idea
to contact Sony and try to get one of their new CDP-101 players at a discount
and ahead of the actual release in exchange for it appearing in my system in
the Stereo Review article. They explained there were only two units in the U.S., both on
dealer tours. The best they could do is arrange for a Sony rep to bring one
over for the photo shoot and let me use it for a short time, and guarantee me
first purchase of the player and initial 14 CD when they became available.





Cutting through the chaff, the bottom line was it sucked.
Some of the CD were so intolerable ~ especially Billy Joel’s The Nylon
Curtain
, that listening at only 75-80dB my ears would be ringing after five
minutes. I was furious. I wrote to some rather nasty letters to both Sony and
CBS, and pissed off more than a few producers.





I was not the only one who felt this way. As they say, there
are three sides to every story, yours, mine, and the truth. Enter producer Phil
Spector. There was an article in one of the stereo rags a year or two after the
initial launch of CD. It expounded on how great the new format was because CD
recordings were transferred from the original masters. Phil Spector thought
this was rather odd since, as Billy Joel’s producer, he had the original master
recording in his own personal vault and no one had ever asked him about using it.





Eventually that little tidbit of information led to the
“discovery” that indeed, none of the original CD releases were made from the
original master. What they were made from, was the “original master” used to
cut the vinyl record. And these were in actuality copies of copies of copies,
etc. etc. etc., many generations away from “thee” original master. And
to make matters worse, the “master” they used from making the vinyl records, of
course has RIAA equalization applied as well as many other “tweaks” to
compensate for losses in the analog record playback medium. All of these
intended for consumer analog playback compensation and “enhancements” were ruefully
exposed in the new CD medium.





That was just the beginning. As things progressed we began
to discover all the other digital artifacts that came with the new frontier. In
regards to dynamic range or loudness levels, early CD were often, if not
always, not transferred at the maximum gain level as is usually the case today.
No one applied gain “normalization” back then. Virtually all of the original
initial CD releases have been reissued, at least once. I can honestly say this
because for a long time I owned 100% of CD released and even five years after the initial release of CD I owned at least 25% of
all CD released. There has been a great transition in how original recordings
were transferred to CD.





As far original digital recording go, there has been a great
deal of transition too. I recall a band I was in around the mid/late 90’s. We
made our first CD and it originally recorded on 16 track ADAT and then
transferred to 2-track DAT for final mastering. Curiously, the CD sounded
better than the DAT master. Apparently there was some kind of enhancement going
on in the CD transfer process that we had no control over. Likewise, I’ve also
been recording live-in-concert for a local chorale/orchestral for 20+ years and
producing their CDs. Nowadays I record to the PC hard disk at 24/96. I’m always
somewhat disappointed to hear the final result on CD because it never sounds as
good as the 24/96 master.





Chris, it’s interesting that you mention Tower of Power
– Direct, for two reasons. The first is that in the above mentioned photo shoot
which included the Sony CD player that the Sony rep brought over, after the
photo shoot was done the Sony rep said “It’s been a while since I’ve heard a
system like this. Would happen to have the Sheffield Lab Tower of Power direct
to disk recording?” I said yes, I do (smile). “Could you put that on for me? And turn it up.
I’d sure like to hear this system stretch its legs.” So I put it on the Linn
with a Decca pickup and cranked it up. I wish I had a video of this. You should
have seen his face! It was absolutely precious. His jaw was, literally hanging open. His head turning
from side to side as various voices and instruments came in and out of the mix.
When he left it was like a disheveled dog sulking away with his tail between
his legs.





The second reason is I agree with you, the CD is at a
substantially reduced level. I’m not sure which CD version you have. Wikipedia
mentions only one CD, Direct PLUS
released in 1997. But this is not the original CD release of this album. The
original CD (Sheffield Lab CD-17) is the same title as the LP. There is no release date on it.
Curiously, the liner notes say that the CD was made from the original digital
master tape (Sheffield Lab concurrently recorded both direct to disk along side
analog tape, and later digital, for archiving, which were eventually re-released
on CD. I say curiously because the original recording was made in 1981 which I
believe was long before Sheffield started
using digital backups. One of my friend’s friends is good friends with Lincoln
Mayorga. He often stays at his home when in town. I’ll try and get in touch
with him and find out what the story is). What I’m getting at is that
apparently Sheffield Lab did not apply any gain “normalization” in the CD
transfer. This may actually predate when normalization came into play or maybe Sheffield simply decided not to use it.





Chris, regarding your final comment, “I was wondering if any other folks here have
experience this same effect using their most dynamic recordings: do they sound
"dull" to you until boosted a great deal?”. In my experience, both my
own recordings of music or just plain good old outside noise/sounds, or
commercially available recordings, every recording has its own natural playback
level. Obviously, much of this will also depend on your playback system as well
as the room ~ how large it is, its acoustical properties, etc. I guess that’s
why I like remote control so much. It’s easy to adjust the gain appropriately
from recording to recording and even from track to track (every track doesn’t
have to have the same gain setting as so many recording/mastering engineers
seem to do). I’ve even gotten to the point where I put a little sticker on the
recording and write down the gain level so I can just dial it in to the
appropriate level before hitting the play button. So yes, some, many (all?) recordings can sound dull until the gain is set at the level they sound best. And yes, I find there is a very wide range in that gain.

As a final note I'd also like to add that IMO the experience and care the recording/mastering engineer puts into a recording has far more to do with the quality of the recording than whether it was recorded in analog or digital, or what the sample rate/bit depth or tape speed, equipment used, etc was.



  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I am not in the hobby anymore really. I listen very selectively to a very modest LP system when in the right mood (odd numbered full moons). 50 years seemed long enough to listen. Nowdays I seek the joys of silence.

Clearly I understand. When I was a music major, I avoided listening to music outside of rehearsals and lessons, and I was only 18-19 years old at the time.

I know a very interesting person at work, which is in a large engineering company, that is a technical writer BUT also has a PhD in piano performance from UNT, which is a fairly good music school for both jazz and classical musicians. I didn't know that PhDs in performance were even available. She doesn't play or listen to music much at all nowadays and conversations about the subject don't bring her pleasure. I understand why...although in this case it took a conversation with me that I'm sure wasn't fun for her because I asked one too many questions about the subject.

Now that I'm not in music for a living I can enjoy it on my own terms. I would guess many might question my devotion to the subject of "accurate music reproduction", but for me, it is easy to understand why - I gave music up in order to do what I do for a living today. Not entirely sure if it was the right trade, but I'm enjoying music now in a way that I've not been able to do over a lifetime of dreaming about doing it.

Mark, welcome back - your observations are always insightful and articulate. You also produced some very good stuff along the way for guys like us.

"Follow your bliss!" (attrib. Joseph Campbell)

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, they don't care about you. You are not their interest. You might do better "hobby wise" to find small craft producers who are recording non-commerical artists and support them by buying their tapes and local pressed LPs and digital releases.

(shameless plug)

Yeah, like me. [:D]

http://gewchorale.org/

BTW, we have a spring concert All That Jazz this Friday and Saturday featuring local jazz group The Groove Merchants. I have four free tickets available for the Friday night concert. EMAIL me if you want them.

Glen Ellyn - Wheaton Chorale

College Church, Wheaton, IL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The second reason is I agree with you, the CD is at a substantially reduced level. I’m not sure which CD version you have. Wikipedia mentions only one CD, Direct PLUS released in 1997. But this is not the original CD release of this album. The original CD (Sheffield Lab CD-17) is the same title as the LP. There is no release date on it. Curiously, the liner notes say that the CD was made from the original digital master tape (Sheffield Lab concurrently recorded both direct to disk along side analog tape, and later digital, for archiving, which were eventually re-released on CD.

The one I have is "CD-17". It's actually a very innocuous recording (as in uninteresting) until you turn it up to "hand level". Amazing. Here is the DR database record of it that I uploaded recently: http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/details.php?id=36630

Thanks for the comments - I'm still digesting them.

Chris

Edited by Cask05
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they were made from, was the “original master” used to cut the vinyl record. And these were in actuality copies of copies of copies, etc. etc. etc., many generations away from “thee” original master. And to make matters worse, the “master” they used from making the vinyl records, of course has RIAA equalization applied as well as many other “tweaks” to compensate for losses in the analog record playback medium. All of these intended for consumer analog playback compensation and “enhancements” were ruefully exposed in the new CD medium.

I'd heard this in other forums and other conversations, but hadn't seen anyone with first- or second-hand experience. This sounds right to me, so I'll accept what you're saying here as truth. It also explains a lot of why the first generation of CDs were hated - because they were reproducing exactly that which was impressed into them - however badly it was executed. And CD format "leaves no prisoners" with respect to how it sounds: WYSIWYG. If you want to put vinyl master tracks on the CD (complete with the RIAA curve that has no relevance for CDs), it will capture it and play back exactly what you put on it.

As a final note I'd also like to add that IMO the experience and care the recording/mastering engineer puts into a recording has far more to do with the quality of the recording than whether it was recorded in analog or digital, or what the sample rate/bit depth or tape speed, equipment used, etc was.

This is abundantly clear now that the information and data above has been sorted through.

It gets down to the people, practices, and most importantly...the organizational cultures involved.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

artto said,

"As a final note I'd also like to add that IMO the experience and care the recording/mastering engineer puts into a recording has far more to do with the quality of the recording than whether it was recorded in analog or digital, or what the sample rate/bit depth or tape speed, equipment used, etc was."

I typically agree with artto's interesting and thorough posts. I especially agree with the above quote.

IMO excellent sounding recordings sound good for many reasons other than the recording medium. The converse is true for bad sounding recordings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CD buyer to them isn't some geek with 2A3 amplifiers and Klipshorns, it's a young kid with a Mustang that wants loud music in the car, and so on. For playing music in cars (or on boom boxes), compressed is the right answer.

I used to listen to loud -- relatitively uncompressed, compared to now -- music in my car all the time in the '80s and into the '90s on my Alpine car stereo. Often it was via chrome or metal tape. I had this thing called a volume control, and I would turn it up until the post Dolby loop tape hiss was just covered by the traffic noise. This worked with most classical, jazz, film, folk and pop/rock music.

I think the corporations would get even larger if they put out a dynamic, exciting, high quality product that the young kid in the Mustang would find "cool," just as they do at my house.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me at this point the music business is on the same plane as say finance and food.

Actually, food is the key. Back in the Adam Smith model of capitalism, you would stop by the fruit stand and taste the fruit, then buy the good tasting stuff.

But ... you would need to have tasted at least one piece of good fruit in your life to make this "market check on quality" work. The kid in the Mustang needs to take a bite. The more he and his peers do, the better quality will be ... unless good fruit is systematically eliminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... every recording has its own natural playback
level ...
I’ve even gotten to the point where I put a little sticker on the
recording and write down the gain level so I can just dial it in to the
appropriate level before hitting the play button. So yes, some, many (all?) recordings can sound dull until the gain is set at the level they sound best. And yes, I find there is a very wide range in that gain.

Absolutely. I use the stickers, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... every recording has its own natural playback
level ...
I’ve even gotten to the point where I put a little sticker on the
recording and write down the gain level so I can just dial it in to the
appropriate level before hitting the play button. So yes, some, many (all?) recordings can sound dull until the gain is set at the level they sound best. And yes, I find there is a very wide range in that gain.

Absolutely. I use the stickers, too.

I wish lcassical recordings would have info on the disc to tell you where you are sitting when listening, i.e., what row, and perhap a peak level for a particular piece of the recording. Then you could adjust for an 'at the concert' moment.

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that we've discussed the DR ratings scale, data observations, correlations to our music preferences, and how Loudness War CDs occur, the next subject is at least as important: what the DR ratings don't tell us. This will require input from more than just this writer, so feel free to identify reasonable observations about what DR ratings don't tell us. I'll enumerate some obvious ones.

DR ratings don't tell us about:

1) Poor quality recording and editing equipment that introduces noise and degrades the sound quality, including high levels of analog tape hiss

2) Poor quality transfer to the recorded medium, e.g., noise or wow/flutter of vinyl records, and off-center or off-balance disks/discs.

3) Poorly EQed recordings during mixing or mastering

4) Pops, ticks, warps, and other vinyl issues

5) Uninteresting mixing or mastering of produced recordings

6) Poor musicianship or composition

7) Poor reproduction of either extreme low frequencies or extreme high frequencies, effects of monaural bass lines on vinyl recordings, effects of analog recorder limitations on capturing accurate percussion transients such as cymbals, triangles, small bells, glockenspiel, etc.

8) Vinyl FR loss toward the inside tracks of the disk

9) Tracks that have significant variation in loudness over an extended period of time (i.e., the "Bolero" effect on long-term compressed dynamics, changes to recording gain during recording (gain jockeying)

10) Differing sensitivity of some listeners to analog pops/ticks, tape hiss, wow/flutter, monaural bass, and infrasonic noise

11) Constraints in listener tastes for certain music types, i.e., preferences for acoustic music or for amplified music, preference or dislikes for certain music genres, preference for a limited set of music of a certain historical time period (to the exclusion of other types and vintage music)

12) Use of "enhancement" techniques such as aural exciters, overprocessing, autotune, electronic synthesis of acoustic instruments, electronic percussion, electronic voices, synthesizer effects, etc.

I'm sure that this list is not exhaustive. Note that the DR database wasn't generated as a panacea for audiophile issues, but merely a reaction to the dynamic range compression increasingly used in pop/rock/mass market recordings.

Chris

Edited by Cask05
Link to comment
Share on other sites

... every recording has its own natural playback
level ...
I’ve even gotten to the point where I put a little sticker on the
recording and write down the gain level so I can just dial it in to the
appropriate level before hitting the play button. So yes, some, many (all?) recordings can sound dull until the gain is set at the level they sound best. And yes, I find there is a very wide range in that gain.

Absolutely. I use the stickers, too.

I wish lcassical recordings would have info on the disc to tell you where you are sitting when listening, i.e., what row, and perhap a peak level for a particular piece of the recording. Then you could adjust for an 'at the concert' moment.

Bruce

Bruce, unfortunately that is usually, if not always, virtually impossible.

The reason is that many (most?) classical recordings are made using mutli-mic/multi-track techniques. If you think multi-track pop/rock recordings can be bad..........These can range from the famous "Decca Tree" which used a spaced array of at least 3 micrphones (no fixed distances specified) which was hung or placed well above the conductor, or even the orchestra, to extreme multi-mic techniques where microphones might be placed very close to a single or pair of instruments, or many small groups within the orchestra.

There really aren't that many widely spaced single pair or trio main microphone pickup recordings (like those of Telarc and Mercury Living Presence). Even then the microphones are not out at any distance where you would sit in the concert hall. They are usually on the stage closer to the orchestra, much more like what the conductor would hear because the microphones don't "hear" things the way our ears and brain do. If the microphones were placed out in the audience where we normally "like" the sound, the recording would sound too ambient and way too muddy.

I have many commercial recordings that were recorded live-in concert and I used to be amazed at how quiet the audience was. As my playback system got bette and better I realized it wasn't so much that the audience was quiet as it was because the microphones were so close to the instruments. This was done so that very little gain was required from the microphones and the gain was low enough that audience noise was barely if not completely inaudile (for most listeners). You will often need not only a very high resolution playback system but also a very quiet room with really good acoustics to hear this (or turn it up to unrealistic levels).

This was also done on live-in-concert recordings in older halls, like Boston Symphony Hall. These older halls do not have the sound isolation/transmission loss that newer halls do. Consequently things like traffic noise can be heard if you listen closely. Very close microphone techniques were used in these situations as well.

To my ear, these type of recordings typically harsh and strident on the higher strings and wind instruments, alto soprano, etc. Some of this is also due to the playback equipment/room acoustics which seem to aggravate the issue. In order to minimize this, in my experience you need not only a room with good acoustics, you'll need speakers that act as a broadband single point source and are phase coherent (time delay alignment between individual drivers will not accomplish this). The newest digital amplification like the NAD C390DD I'm using also seem to allow me to hear passed this producing a much less strident sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More food for thought: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHKnztY3Glc in particular 3:09 onward.

That was a fun thing to watch - thanks for sharing. That sounded pretty cool on my carry-around noise canceling headphones.

Tip of the iceberg...

I started this thread because I believe some folks on this forum are a bit colorblind or fatalistic to dynamic compression issues of mass-media music. I also believe that this has turned into a voodoo cult-like subject whereby anti-technology bias rules the day. This from the same community of folks that otherwise understand circuit design (passive), impedance concepts, and other fairly esoteric subjects that the average person doesn't understand, so I'm scratching my head here.

Even in my own household, one of my offspring gets it, the other one, well, doesn't. I think that ear buds and iTunes/smartphones are the reasons why for so many people, the light bulb just hasn't turned on yet.

Moving right along, I took one example of vinyl vs. CD (loudness war music) and plotted it for the same recordings of Madonna's Confessions on a Dance Floor (in hot pink vinyl vs. garden-variety shiny CD). I recently acquired the vinyl version for the purposes of controlled A-B comparisons. I'll let you figure out how much better the vinyl record is over the Loudness War CD. My significant other actually liked the vinyl version--at about 90 dB© at our listening positions, which is amazing for her. The experience was totally different between the two versions, IMHO.

Chris

post-28404-13819853556766.jpg

Edited by Cask05
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...The reason is that many (most?) classical recordings are made using mutli-mic/multi-track techniques. If you think multi-track pop/rock recordings can be bad..........These can range from the famous "Decca Tree" which used a spaced array of at least 3 micrphones (no fixed distances specified) which was hung or placed well above the conductor, or even the orchestra, to extreme multi-mic techniques where microphones might be placed very close to a single or pair of instruments, or many small groups within the orchestra.

I'm assuming that you have heard recordings by John Eargle while he was at Delos as the chief recording engineer. I looked up Dr. Eargle's bio and found that he won a big award for recording three times, and for recordings that I don't remember.

One reason why this may be is that Eargle used as many as two dozen microphones for his classical recording sessions and he would, after the fact, reassemble the sound image spatially at the mixing studio to create an virtual orchestra on a stereo pair of speakers. In my experience, though, something was definitely lost in the process. Not that I'm saying that anything that Eargle did was average by even today's standards - he was otherwise brilliant.

Some of the best recordings that I've ever heard were done by my old man using two fairly good cardioid microphones spaced about 10 feet apart on each side of the conductor, and at the level of the conductor's head, aimed upwards at a 45 degree angle just in front of the stage on stands. Sure, you could hear audience noise much more than the recording of the "pros" that traveled the wind symphony circuits, recording school and university ensembles. But you also could hear a very dynamic and real soundstage image that even today still registers in my mind's eye. I couldn't believe it at the time. And it was so simple to setup, and it actually made sense from the standpoint of the prime "mixer": the conductor.

I realized then that there were a lot of folks in the industry that really didn't use the same measures of merit to set up their microphones that I would use.

Thereafter, I distrusted the entire recording industry.

Chris

Edited by Cask05
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...The reason is that many (most?) classical recordings are made using mutli-mic/multi-track techniques. If you think multi-track pop/rock recordings can be bad..........These can range from the famous "Decca Tree" which used a spaced array of at least 3 micrphones (no fixed distances specified) which was hung or placed well above the conductor, or even the orchestra, to extreme multi-mic techniques where microphones might be placed very close to a single or pair of instruments, or many small groups within the orchestra.

I'm assuming that you have heard recordings by John Eargle while he was at Delos as the chief recording engineer. I looked up Dr. Eargle's bio and found that he won a big award for recording only once, and for a recording that I don't remember.

One reason why this may be is that Eargle used as many as two dozen microphones for his classical recording sessions and he would, after the fact, reassemble the sound image spatially at the mixing studio to create an virtual orchestra on a stereo pair of speakers. In my experience, though, something was definitely lost in the process. Not that I'm saying that anything that Eargle did was average by even today's standards - he was otherwise brilliant.

Some of the best recordings that I've ever heard were done by my old man using two fairly good cardioid microphones spaced about 10 feet apart on each side of the conductor, and at the level of the conductor's head, aimed upwards at a 45 degree angle just in front of the stage on stands. Sure, you could hear audience noise much more than the recording of the "pros" that traveled the wind symphony circuits, recording school and university ensembles. But you also could hear a very dynamic and real soundstage image that even today still registers in my mind's eye. I couldn't believe it at the time. And it was so simple to setup, and it actually made sense from the standpoint of the prime "mixer": the conductor.

I realized then that there were a lot of folks in the industry that really didn't use the same measures of merit to set up their microphones that I would use.

Thereafter, I distrusted the entire recording industry.

Chris

Wel then Chris, you'll be glad to know that I use something similar to "your old man". More recently most of my recordings are done at College Church, in Wheaton, IL which has pretty nice acousticswith a decay time of a about 3 seconds when empt, so I have to record somewhat closer to the chorale/orchestra/band/whatever or th mix gets too ambient and loses detail.

But the idea is the same - two widely spaced omi condenser mikes 15'-20' apart - about 10'-15' out from the stage - depends on the situation - and about 9' up. I usually need a cardiod or hyper cardiod for soloists miked close up so the P.A. doesn't get invovled (they stand closer to the front of the stage in firing range of the overhead speakers. Sometimes single omni 1'-2' over the piano and thats about it. No more than four mikes, two them being the mains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Artto, I understand completely that the recording techniques of orchestral music are all over the map. I rather like the 3 mic technique, with the middle mic level brought up just enough to fill the hole in the middle.

This was also done on live-in-concert recordings in older halls, like Boston Symphony Hall. These older halls do not have the sound isolation/transmission loss that newer halls do. Consequently things like traffic noise can be heard if you listen closely. Very close microphone techniques were used in these situations as well.

I used to listen to the Janos Starker Bach Cello recordings, while working at my computer late at night. Wearing headphones, I could hear the rumble of a truck now and then, or a door shutting. It was always a little unnerving, being 1 a.m., out in the middle of the country where I live.

Chris' next item to tackle will be a can of worms, like the war on terror or war on poverty. There's too many variables.

Bruce

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to listen to the Janos Starker Bach Cello recordings...

Thanks for the title - I'm always looking for good J.S.

Chris' next item to tackle will be a can of worms, like the war on terror or war on poverty. There's too many variables.

Yes, I know that it might upset some entrenched folks, sort of like those folks that get upset when certain professonal sports teams lose...

What I've learned is to try to separate fiction from fact, to use measurable data and try to turn that into information, and then let the chips fall as they might.

As you can see, I'm not particularly a fan of phonograph records--even though I used them exclusively up until I was 30 years old because the alternatives were either much worse in SQ, cassette, etc., or the breadth of music selections, their unit cost and their logistics/handling issues were too unattractive, e.g., reel-to-reel. I still like some my old direct-to-disk vinyl recordings but they are wearing out (something that digital disks don't do), and the best digital recordings today in multi-channel format actually eclipse these old two channel direct-to-disk recordings, IMHO.

I'm also really not a fan of mass market CDs--but not because of the format, rather since they are almost always so poorly produced and the format is trashed. Even SACDs and DVD-As have problems in this area since the same industry practices are being pushed. In every case with digital, however, I find that it's not the medium, it's rather the people involved and their culture that puts music tracks onto them that are the source of problems.

I don't own stock in any music industry enterprise. I find that all the written accounts of the large multinational corporations that control the bulk of the recorded music market from the standpoint of sales volume and revenue, almost all these accounts tell stories of people that (unlike Will Rogers, who never met a person he didn't like) I don't believe that I'd actually like those "executives" if I met one. So I don't have a problem calling it the way that I see it. I'm the customer--not an employee. I'd like some service, please. But I'm still open to differing accounts, in fact I want to believe that there are people in high places in the industry that actually care about customers like me and their needs.

DMP was bought, then went out of business in the mid-2000s, Sheffield Lab bit the dust in the early 90s with the incoming of the CD format and their assets bought up and are now being resold (albeit with compressed dynamics). Chesky has been struggling to stay alive while losing notable artists due to low monetary rewards. Philips Classical split in the Netherlands with the new label "Pentatone Classics" being born (some good recordings there, others are okay). Telarc is still going but was bought up by another record label. Columbia (CBS) sold out to Sony. (Sony seems to be struggling with periodic and notable horror stories of poor judgment in hiring certain American "executives" that almost put it under a couple of times.) DG seems to still be there - if you like their style of recording and the type of performing halls that they like to record in. Decca Label Group still makes excellent recordings but the parent was bought by Universal, which was then bought by Vivendi. Linn Records is relatively new and apparently doing well, and they have outstanding recordings, etc. These are places to find good recordings, but they typically won't say "Capitol", "Columbia", or "Warner", etc. if you like audio dynamics as I do.

I make a point of buying these higher quality recordings new on disk or on-line so that their producing enterprises are directly rewarded. And I try to find new titles to buy on a regular basis--just like I did in my youth but now I've got a bit more disposable income to apply to the activity than I did back then. Buying discs used, ripping them, then selling them while keeping the ripped music is actually stealing if you look at it from artists' revenue standpoint. James Taylor has stopped producing new music discs because he says the financial payback on the investment in time, effort, and financial resources isn't worth it to him; Sara K. has said the same thing, etc. I'm sure that this is also true of most other artists that now leave the industry, and I know first hand that this practice has also affected one in my own clan. It's a shame. It's like people who don't tip the really good buskers in large metropolitan areas: before long these trained and able artists just disappear.

Chris

Edited by Cask05
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...