 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roger over at Intrada has mentioned feedback on this release and how it pertains to their policy of not altering the dynamic range of the materials they work with. But he's open to reconsidering the policy and would like opinions. I'm sure he'll read any comments here if folks have 'em.
http://www.intrada.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7129
|
|
|
|
|
|
The quote:
Question for you guys -- I've gotten a few questions about the sound difference between the complete program and the original CD program. What these guys are noticing is that the complete program is presented with the natural dynamic range of the original recording. The CD program is compressed, meaning the differential between the quietest parts and the loudest parts has been reduced. It provides a thicker sound, but is a bit of an artificial range. This compression seems to be the dominant choice for mastering these days, while Intrada has been religious about not tampering with the natural range. But...if the preference is for the sound of this compression, there's no reason we couldn't adopt that going forward. Just curious about your all feelings on this.
Ironically sound had to be compressed for LPs because the physical material of vinyl wouldn't allow for a wide dynamic range. It was one of the original selling points of the CD medium that you could have a full dynamic range without the need for compression. Kind of interesting that people seem to prefer the compressed sound! Or perhaps they just don't appreciate the natural acoustic. Thoughts?
Let me be the first to say: HELL NO. Keep doing what you have been doing, Intrada.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been loving this CD, so I guess I'm in the "don't go changin'" camp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would say that maintaining dynamic range is great, but if you "look" at a lot of the cues in question here, they are extremely quiet and the tallest peaks come nowhere near the maximum volume. The volume and power could be increased without sacrificing the dynamic range. And I personally am not a fan of maintaining true dynamic range when the purpose is to hear the true difference between a cue that is 99% music you can't hear/appreciate and 1% deafeningly loud cymbal or drum crashes. I don't want to sacrifice hearing the rest of the cue in detail just so I can hear the normal difference between an extremely loud percussive moment. But like I said earlier, most of the cues could take some more oomph without pushing their peaks through the roof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Easy answer. Whatever Varese does, don't do that. Every film score release should be mixed like the original Indiana Jones and The Temple Of Doom album. Jesus that's a great-sounding album. Just copy that for everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 30, 2016 - 9:23 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
SchiffyM
(Member)
|
Ironically sound had to be compressed for LPs because the physical material of vinyl wouldn't allow for a wide dynamic range. It was one of the original selling points of the CD medium that you could have a full dynamic range without the need for compression. Kind of interesting that people seem to prefer the compressed sound! Or perhaps they just don't appreciate the natural acoustic. Thoughts?
I love the full dynamic range of CDs. But my life doesn't love that dynamic range so much.
I have a not-bad stereo system (it sounds good to me, though I have no doubt that audiophiles would turn up their noses). But it only gets played (for my CDs) maybe a half-dozen times a year. The sound travels through most of my house. So when the kids are doing homework, or sleeping, or my wife is working, or just wants some peace and quiet, it's really not an option (at least not at the volume needed to appreciate the quieter parts of that dynamic range).
So the vast majority of the time, I listen to music on smaller speakers in my home office, or in my car (my commute is now close to an hour both ways). And honestly, some compression (not a huge amount, certainly) can make it easier to appreciate the music in those circumstances.
Now before you say to me "Just because you can't listen to your stereo system so often, I should have to suffer with compressed music?", let me assure you that is not my wish. I do believe in preserving the widest range.
But if the request was for thoughts on why sometimes a compressed sound might be preferred… well, it's just a pragmatic choice based on my own life. I can appreciate the natural acoustic, but in my general life, it's not an option very often. I'm sure I'm not alone. For people who live in apartment buildings, or dorms, or with roommates, or who can't afford higher end audio equipment, the full dynamic range can be problematic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ironically sound had to be compressed for LPs because the physical material of vinyl wouldn't allow for a wide dynamic range. It was one of the original selling points of the CD medium that you could have a full dynamic range without the need for compression. Kind of interesting that people seem to prefer the compressed sound! Or perhaps they just don't appreciate the natural acoustic. Thoughts?
I love the full dynamic range of CDs. But my life doesn't love that dynamic range so much.
I have a not-bad stereo system (it sounds good to me, though I have no doubt that audiophiles would turn up their noses). But it only gets played (for my CDs) maybe a half-dozen times a year. The sound travels through most of my house. So when the kids are doing homework, or sleeping, or my wife is working, or just wants some peace and quiet, it's really not an option (at least not at the volume needed to appreciate the quieter parts of that dynamic range).
So the vast majority of the time, I listen to music on smaller speakers in my home office, or in my car (my commute is now close to an hour both ways). And honestly, some compression (not a huge amount, certainly) can make it easier to appreciate the music in those circumstances.
Now before you say to me "Just because you can't listen to your stereo system so often, I should have to suffer with compressed music?", let me assure you that is not my wish. I do believe in preserving the widest range.
But if the request was for thoughts on why sometimes a compressed sound might be preferred… well, it's just a pragmatic choice based on my own life. I can appreciate the natural acoustic, but in my general life, it's not an option very often. I'm sure I'm not alone. For people who live in apartment buildings, or dorms, or with roommates, or who can't afford higher end audio equipment, the full dynamic range can be problematic.
Couldn´t agree more!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
