Jump to content

Audio Myths and Human Perception - Explored


mikebse2a3

Recommended Posts

In reverse composition chronology--my short list:

 

War Requiem [Blu-ray]

Mahler: Symphony No. 9, Claudio Abbado, Lucerne Festival Orchestra [Blu-ray]

Lucerne Fest / Mahler Sym 1/ Prokofiev Piano Cto 3 [Blu-ray]

Daniel Barenboim - Liszt Piano Concertos [Blu-ray]

Daniel Barenboim - The Warsaw Recital [Blu-ray]

Chopin Piano Concertos [Blu-ray] 

Mariss Jansons - The Beethoven Symphonies

Daniel Barenboim/Staatskapelle Berlin: Beethoven - Piano Concertos 1-5 [Blu-ray]

Bach: Christmas Oratorio [Blu-ray]

Bach: St. Matthew Passion [Blu-ray]

Bach, J.S.: Brandenburg Concertos

 

There are also many more audio-only Blu-Ray discs from Naxos and other labels that I recommend highly in 5.0 or 5.1.  Generally those are in 24/96 format that were recorded within the last 10 years.  The classical music video catalogue has slowed since the introduction of Blu-Ray, which I attribute mostly to the Great Recession putting quality 5.1 sound systems out of reach of our younger folks.

 

I've found Decca Blu-Ray classical to be mastered for accentuated highs and attenuated lows, although not to the degree that their CDs exhibit (this is unlike any of the Blu-Ray videos above)  The problem that I currently have is that I don't have a way to demaster Blu-Ray video discs--otherwise it would be a snap to correct them.

 

The labels that I look for are Arthaus, Euroarts, and Accentus.  The one I avoid is Decca (for the sole reason above) and any video done before 2007, especially those not in 5.0 format or better.  These are usually old analog recordings or stereo recordings that have been converted to 5.1.

 

I'm not a fan so much of old analog recordings that have been transferred to Blu-Ray or DVD-A: these exhibit quite a bit of loss of ambience and increased noise floors--without exception.

 

I've not been looking for "high romantic" videos yet, such as Brahms, Bruckner, and even Wagner, etc. even though I do have audio-only discs and CDs--but those are on my acquisition list.  Twentieth century is pretty fragmented after neoclassic and I avoid 12 tone compositions in general.  I'm generally a bigger fan of neoclassic, late romantic, impressionist, the Russians (Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, etc.), early romantic, classic, galant, baroque, and renaissance. I'm still looking for more videos of those eras but they're more difficult to find. 

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Dudamel and the L.A. Phil dedicated the Walt Disney Concert Hall here in L. A. several years ago the concert was broadcast over local PBS and included the greatest version I've ever heard of Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps. (Le Sacre has been kind of a specialty of the L.A. Phil ever since Zubin Mehta was the music director.) I've always hoped that a Blu-ray disc of this performance would become available but alas, I've never seen or heard of one.

 

I agree with you that good Blu-ray discs of early 20th century classical music are hard to find. If you know of a good Blu-ray recording/performance of Le Sacre I'd greatly appreciate your letting us know about it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/31/2017 at 1:32 PM, Chris A said:

Here is a sorted list of albums in my digital library with the highest dynamic range (excluding SACDs and BDs).

Here is a scenario for anyone to explore....go build a system with only 40dB of dynamic range and listen to your <20dB dynamic range recordings. Then playback on a system with 90dB of dynamic range. You will measure the same <20dB of dynamic range in both scenarios, but if you don't hear a difference, then you probably have a hearing problem. It would be quite unfortunate for an audiophile to have hearing problems, but unfortunately that seems to be the norm....

 

Conclusion? A track wide average doesn't reveal the dynamic frequency changing aspects of music.

 

Just perhaps there is a more complicated understanding of how the numbers correlate to our hearing, but far be it for an audio industry expert to suggest such a thing. We have internet experts on the forums to confuse us!

 

The problem with audio myths and human perception in the audiophile world is that people are looking for reasons to justify their preferences....and they'll draw on any misunderstanding as long as it involves some kind of numbers. And there may very likely be some partial truths behind the numbers - and that really muddies the waters with guys like Chris that get so hung up on the one variable they think they understand. The reason I presented him with Nightwish all those years ago is because metal is a genre that is supposed to have a steady state drone to it - which raises the average signal (thus decreasing the peak to average ratio). However, the individual instruments popping in and out of that drone are pushing well over 60dB (measured) - but you'd never see that happening with a track wide average. The whole heavy metal genre is built on this principal....detail beneath the mash of noise. There is no other way to sonically express those simultaneous emotions of sadness, anger, love, and beauty at the same time. Arrogantly dismissing a genre of music because it doesn't fit some arrogantly defined mold is frankly disgusting to me, and that's why I get so direct on this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike--I'm sorry that something got you upset...I don't recall anything in this thread about what you're referring to, however.  Namely, this portion of your last posting:

 

10 minutes ago, DrWho said:

...and that really muddies the waters with guys like Chris that get so hung up on the one variable they think they understand. The reason I presented him with Nightwish all those years ago is because metal is a genre that is supposed to have a steady state drone to it - which raises the average signal (thus decreasing the peak to average ratio).

 

Is this still bothering you?  I don't dwell on things said by others over 8 years ago (IIRC). 

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hsosdrummer said:

If you know of a good Blu-ray recording/performance of Le Sacre I'd greatly appreciate your letting us know about it.

 

I've found a couple of prospects: one by the Mariinsky Ballet (including the Firebird) (DTS-HD MA) and the other by the San Francisco Symphony (Tilson-Thomas) which is music-only (TrueHD, 48/24 upsampled to 96/24--which is odd but doesn't hurt anything). 

 

I may go with the Mariinsky due to the ballets also being performed.  The San Francisco Symphony version got solid reviews, while the Mariinsky got knocked a bit due to the apparently numerous close-ups of the ballet performers during the performance instead of the entire stage, which is also odd but doesn't kill the deal for me.

 

I'll let you know how it goes when it arrives.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll have to say I haven't had the time to really look into the dynamic-range-loudness-war issue or the measurement parameters/methods being used by those exploring this subject.

 

Chris or anyone else interested in this subject if you have time what is your take on this article and it's conclusions..?

 

http://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/dynamic-range-loudness-war

 

Note for some reason I had to click more than once to get the graphs to display properly and it's getting late for me so I will read it in more detail at a later time.

 

 

miketn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike, that article brings up the difficulty in measuring full dynamic range, since a mouse could run across the stage (or any coughing, squirming in chairs, or any other noise) during a performance and affect the full dynamic range--which would lead to endless arguments. 

 

The modified crest factor used in the DR Database gives a measure that will let you know if limiting (otherwise known as clipping) and/or compression (nonlinear gain applied to reduce relative transient peaks) has been applied, and approximately by how much--if you know the approximate unclipped/uncompressed crest factor for the type of music genre and instrumentation. 

 

It isn't a measure of total dynamic range, but more of the degree of damage during mastering (and sometimes mixing) to the original recorded tracks to make them "louder"--i.e., the RMS average of the track.  For instance, percussion tracks have the highest crest factors since the peaks can be big compared to the average (RMS) level, so the DR rating of a percussion-heavy track will have to undergo a great deal more compression and limiting to get its crest factor down to, say, 6 or 8 than a classical pipe organ performance, which will have a much higher RMS average due to the sustaining nature of the pipe tones in the typically extremely high RT60 cathedrals (usually well over 1) where those organs usually reside.  To get the crest factor down to 6-8 for pipe organ performance requires little compression/limiting.  However, I wouldn't call most pipe organ performances "dynamic hi-fi" in the same sense as a high crest factor percussion performance or orchestral piece with many wind players and percussion transients.  I didn't pick any pipe organ CDs for that list of "high dynamic range" examples since their DR ratings are categorically much lower. Pipe organ tracks do have sections where they are dynamic, but those sections are characteristically quite brief, leading to the perception of sustained, unchanging loudness over time. 

 

The multiplying factors that I quoted above for the crest factors to get effective dynamic range are merely rules of thumb, but give us a relative feel for the dynamic range that is predominant for the track.  If there are very long tracks (like many classical tracks are relative to popular music) that have a lot of variability (RMS) per segment of the track, actually it would be the classical tracks that would show up as underrepresented in terms of instantaneous or segmented crest factor.

 

When I look at any popular music that's undergone heavy mastering limiting and compression, it's quite easy to see the "freshly mown grass" profile (a term that my wife coined) when opening a track in Audacity.  Using "Clip Fix" will partially undo the limiting but will not reconstruct the lost higher frequency components that were mown down flat with the amplitude peaks...in time-based fashion.

 

As far as using the DR Database ratings to extrapolate to dynamic range: the data is available, not subject to personal opinion, and quite comprehensive in terms of the number of recordings represented on CD or download format--which is quite unlike the situation with the EBU measures discussed in the linked article that you posted. 

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Chris A said:

Is this still bothering you?  I don't dwell on things said by others over 8 years ago (IIRC). 

I was referring to your constant listing of some arbitrary "dynamic range" number as if it had any meaning. The quote to which I referenced had a long list of music with <20dB of "dynamic range" numbers, but the reality is the true dynamic range is much much larger than that. If you want to keep your head in the sand, then by all means keep it there. But you're obsessing over something that isn't important to the actual art of music.

 

The rest of us don't listen to 3 minute averages. We listen to individual instruments popping in and out as melodies and harmonies move around the sonic space, often listening through things to hear deeper inner details that an "average level" doesn't notice. That stuff is happening on timescales of tens of milliseconds (not minutes), and the cool thing is we're able to hear it because our ears are multidimensional across frequency and time. I can still hear the high frequency decay of a flute at 50dB SPL even though there's a huge 90dB low frequency drone coming from the cello section. The average SPL is still 90dB, but we're still hearing the >> 20dB dynamic range of the flute (probably closer to 50dB).

 

What's more obnoxious is that stuff like this even need to be attempted to be described with numbers. Every musician in the world is tune with these effects - and it's the reason they keep playing even though they're drowned out by other sections of the musical group. That's the whole audiophile pursuit....getting every last little bit of nuance from the brilliance of the musicians..... You aren't going to get there if you're focused on 3 minute averages of musical content. Such discussions totally derail the real audiophiles from exploring the truly meaningful aspects of music reproduction. This isn't arrogance on my part - it's experience being shared in a rude way because I'm frustrated by the ignorance of it all.

 

Who gives a flying monkey about the loudness wars? Go listen to music you enjoy and don't condescend on the music you don't understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, DrWho said:

it's experience being shared in a rude way because I'm frustrated by the ignorance of it all.

 

So I'm asking in a nice way to share your experience but please leave the rudeness out of it... !!!  

 

It's simply uncalled for and derails the discussions and causes some members to not want to participate. 

 

Thanks,

miketn :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike Bentz:

 

I again recommend setting up another thread on these specific effects...which you have in the past have been reticent to do for reasons unknown.  Then you can go in the direction that the OP (that would be you) wishes to go, instead of strong emotion-tinged responses filled with obvious angst over each response from the audience to "turn the tide in a different direction"...or perhaps other less friendly motives. 

 

I understand that you have near-and-dear thoughts on this subject--as evidenced by these type of responses.  I'd recommend channeling that energy into productive dialog and/or exposition instead.  Everyone will benefit--including you. 

 

And I certainly won't get in your way...

 

Chris

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
On 7/31/2017 at 11:58 AM, Marvel said:

Chris - Have you had a chance to look at any of the Bob Katz articles? I have found them rather enlightening. One of his articles gives a great history of the VU meter, and how a lot of music production suffers from a non standard use, unlike the movie industry.

 

Bruce

His stuff is absolutely fantastic Bruce.  A driving force in the battle against loudness wars.  For anyone who wants to understand the recording process, from tracking, through mixing to mastering, he is a top source to understand what is going on.

 

Here is his article on compression, among many others including loudness wars, room acoustics, using room calibration software, etc.  

 

https://www.digido.com/portfolio-item/compression/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators
13 hours ago, mikebse2a3 said:

I'll have to say I haven't had the time to really look into the dynamic-range-loudness-war issue or the measurement parameters/methods being used by those exploring this subject.

 

Chris or anyone else interested in this subject if you have time what is your take on this article and it's conclusions..?

 

http://www.soundonsound.com/sound-advice/dynamic-range-loudness-war

 

Note for some reason I had to click more than once to get the graphs to display properly and it's getting late for me so I will read it in more detail at a later time.

 

 

miketn

That article got a lot of response from a technical perspective in professional journals.  The gist of the article is that there is no precise or standard definition of DR.  

 

Bob Katz collected a number articles in his article in his thoughts on the loudness wars, a couple are from AES presentations.

https://www.digido.com/portfolio-item/loudness-war-peace-is-almost-here/ and he links to his excellent video on it.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See this post from Feb 2014 for a Bob Katz video on "Loudness: War and Peace" originally posted on YouTube in Nov. 2011:

The video is also found here:

 

 

It's one of the key videos that I've found on the subject.  It's interesting that it shows the progression in thinking of the cultural aspects of recording and mastering as it transitioned from analog to digital, and the problems of over-saturation used for decades in analog tape recording.  Very informative insights into the cultural issues that persist even today: the notion that mixes have to be "loud", even though both radio and mp3 players now use auto-loudness compensation per track.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DrWho said:

I was referring to your constant listing of some arbitrary "dynamic range" number as if it had any meaning. The quote to which I referenced had a long list of music with <20dB of "dynamic range" numbers, but the reality is the true dynamic range is much much larger than that. If you want to keep your head in the sand, then by all means keep it there. But you're obsessing over something that isn't important to the actual art of music.

 

The rest of us don't listen to 3 minute averages. We listen to individual instruments popping in and out as melodies and harmonies move around the sonic space, often listening through things to hear deeper inner details that an "average level" doesn't notice. That stuff is happening on timescales of tens of milliseconds (not minutes), and the cool thing is we're able to hear it because our ears are multidimensional across frequency and time. I can still hear the high frequency decay of a flute at 50dB SPL even though there's a huge 90dB low frequency drone coming from the cello section. The average SPL is still 90dB, but we're still hearing the >> 20dB dynamic range of the flute (probably closer to 50dB).

 

What's more obnoxious is that stuff like this even need to be attempted to be described with numbers. Every musician in the world is tune with these effects - and it's the reason they keep playing even though they're drowned out by other sections of the musical group. That's the whole audiophile pursuit....getting every last little bit of nuance from the brilliance of the musicians..... You aren't going to get there if you're focused on 3 minute averages of musical content. Such discussions totally derail the real audiophiles from exploring the truly meaningful aspects of music reproduction. This isn't arrogance on my part - it's experience being shared in a rude way because I'm frustrated by the ignorance of it all.

 

Who gives a flying monkey about the loudness wars? Go listen to music you enjoy and don't condescend on the music you don't understand.

 

 

Great Post!!!

 

We all know most recording "engineers" are just wannabee musicians that can't play an instrument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2017 at 0:39 PM, Chris A said:

In reverse composition chronology--my short list:

 

War Requiem [Blu-ray]

Mahler: Symphony No. 9, Claudio Abbado, Lucerne Festival Orchestra [Blu-ray]

Lucerne Fest / Mahler Sym 1/ Prokofiev Piano Cto 3 [Blu-ray]

Daniel Barenboim - Liszt Piano Concertos [Blu-ray]

Daniel Barenboim - The Warsaw Recital [Blu-ray]

Chopin Piano Concertos [Blu-ray] 

Mariss Jansons - The Beethoven Symphonies

Daniel Barenboim/Staatskapelle Berlin: Beethoven - Piano Concertos 1-5 [Blu-ray]

Bach: Christmas Oratorio [Blu-ray]

Bach: St. Matthew Passion [Blu-ray]

Bach, J.S.: Brandenburg Concertos

 

There are also many more audio-only Blu-Ray discs from Naxos and other labels that I recommend highly in 5.0 or 5.1.  Generally those are in 24/96 format that were recorded within the last 10 years.  The classical music video catalogue has slowed since the introduction of Blu-Ray, which I attribute mostly to the Great Recession putting quality 5.1 sound systems out of reach of our younger folks.

 

I've found Decca Blu-Ray classical to be mastered for accentuated highs and attenuated lows, although not to the degree that their CDs exhibit (this is unlike any of the Blu-Ray videos above)  The problem that I currently have is that I don't have a way to demaster Blu-Ray video discs--otherwise it would be a snap to correct them.

 

The labels that I look for are Arthaus, Euroarts, and Accentus.  The one I avoid is Decca (for the sole reason above) and any video done before 2007, especially those not in 5.0 format or better.  These are usually old analog recordings or stereo recordings that have been converted to 5.1.

 

I'm not a fan so much of old analog recordings that have been transferred to Blu-Ray or DVD-A: these exhibit quite a bit of loss of ambience and increased noise floors--without exception.

 

I've not been looking for "high romantic" videos yet, such as Brahms, Bruckner, and even Wagner, etc. even though I do have audio-only discs and CDs--but those are on my acquisition list.  Twentieth century is pretty fragmented after neoclassic and I avoid 12 tone compositions in general.  I'm generally a bigger fan of neoclassic, late romantic, impressionist, the Russians (Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov, etc.), early romantic, classic, galant, baroque, and renaissance. I'm still looking for more videos of those eras but they're more difficult to find. 

 

Chris

 

Thanks for your suggestions.

 

I’ll suggest 2 concerts on Blu-ray that feature opera excerpts, in case you’re interested.  (FWIW, for anyone who is not familiar with opera, I think these concert recordings are a good place to start – i.e., you have the opportunity to hear small excerpts of music from several different composers.)

 

The Opera Gala

 

Berlin Concert: Live From Waldbuhne

 

In case anyone is interested in recommendations to start experiencing ballet on Blu-ray:

 

Tchaikovsky: Swan Lake

 

Giselle

 

Do you listen to multi-channel SACD?   I’ve been exploring Russian sacred choral music.   This is stunningly beautiful: 

 

 Rachmaninoff "All-night Vigil"

 

Regarding old analog recordings that have been remastered, I have found a few that have surprising good quality.  The following recording of Heifetz performing the Beethoven Violin Concerto in D (recorded 1955) is 2 channel.  The Mendelssohn Violin Concerto (recorded 1958) is 3 channel.  The Technical Notes state:  “In this series of Living Stereo reissues on hybrid SACDs, we have used the 3-channel original tapes whenever they existed; when the material was recorded only in stereo, we used that tape.”   “The DSD program is essentially identical to the analog tape,”   “No signal processing was necessary to “improve” these extraordinary tapes.”   Sounds pretty good to me.

 

 Beethoven: Violin Concerto in D / Mendelssohn: Violin Concerto in E Minor

 

IMO these are all examples of good quality recordings.  I wonder how much electronic editing (and DSP “mucking around”) was done on each. 

 

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...