SACD vs. CD - Unfair competition?

[maxg]

Everyone seems to regard compression as the ultimate evil these days. Not me. I listen to classical CD's in the car a lot - this is very problematic.

Yes, it is. Maybe that problem should be solved with the CD players designed for cars? Such as built in compression?

If they have not compressed the sound sufficiently I spend the entire journey turning the volume up to hear the quiet passages and down to save my ears in the louder passages.

As ever the solution involves me spending yet more money I see. Take the existing system out of the car and replace it with one that compresses. The radio is looking to be a more appealing option.

And when you play that CD on ypour expensive system at home, or the audiophile does, what do you think will be the response? Wow, what a great recording?

Sorry - play a CD on my audiophile system at home? Not me - I have vinyl for that!

[(Try it yourself - get a Deutche Grammaphon Dvorak 9th - Karajan. Play from the beginning - for me it is 30 seconds of silence followed by a loan french horn and then on audible music - or 30 seconds of delicacy, a bearable horn and then a ceresendo of kettle drums at around 1 minute in that could blow my eardrums inside out).

No need to try. I know the issue a car offers with a noise floor of about 65dB +/- you will miss a whole lot. Why would I want that compressed CD playing at home? No life in it, nothing resembling the performance. Maybe one should listen to the radio in the car?

My thoughts too

Now I am prepared to accept a lesser compression for home use - but nothing like the ranges you guys are talking about. 96 dB range - are you all insane??

Some time in the not too distant past I read where the most dynamic classical recording at the time only had a 70dB +/- . What he ws discussing is that the peaks were clipped, compresses, distorted. Not needed, even if they design it to your 35-40 dB noise floor.

Agreed

My noise floor in my living room is, I guess, something around 35-40 dB (my meter goes down to 50 only - it is below that). when listening, at night, wife and baby asleep, I want something that goes from said level upto around 80 dB MAXIMUM!! - say a 40 dB range.

And when they are away at grandma, you cannot enjoy the benefits of a more realistic performance I don't have that problem so why should I be limited?

When they are away at Grandma I do indeed turn the volume up. But even here I never exceed 100 dB peak at my listening position. I am not saying you should be limited - I am saying that I do not regard compression as the evil everyone here seems to think it is (if done well of course). Might be nice if either the limited or non-limited CD recordings would say as much on the packaging. I have an SACD recording from Telarc of the 1812 that is littered with warnings. Kinda nice to have.

Greater than that and I will never be able to listen to music again. Come to that - 96 db range over a week and I may never be able to listen to anything ever again - except through a hearing aid.

Not so. The the 96 dB would cover the peaks that happen infrequently only. Your average listening level is whatever is comfortable to you. Short peaks would not harm your hearing.

[i] As an absolute peak value I understand that. But if I am listening to a recording at, say 80 db average level, quiet bits at 40 - then volumes could regularly go over 110 and that is not good for ones hearing. The odd peak going upto a theorectial 136 is indeed irrelevent (and impossible on my speakers anyway).

[skeptic]

It's interesting that vinyl, the darling of audiophiles compressed much classical music out of necessity due to the limitations of the format. Compression is not what so called audiophiles disdain regardless of what they say, it is lack of compression they don't like. When you listen to classical music with a truely wide dynamic range, you have to sit quietly and be attentive or you will miss much of it. If you are far more preoccupied with your sound system than with the music itself, this can be a real problem.

When I listen to classical music in my car, there is a lot of switchable compression from the Sony/JBL/Ford sound system that came with it. Even on a cruise when I am listening through headphones, I use an old Sony car Discman D 808K which offers three levels of compression. The excellent performance of digital compression at a very affordable price allows you to enjoy the most you can get out of classica music under less than ideal listening conditions. ICs provide this performance for pennies when it used to cost thousands of dollars. And I for one am very grateful for it. For pop music, compression is not necessary. Dynamic range is usually very limited, often to within 10 db or so.

[skeptic]

Of the thousands of classical compostions I have on recordings I own, I cannot think of one that lies outside of the capabilities of the dynamic range offered by the RBCD format. If there is compression, it is invariably on a recording that was originally made in the analog format and was beyond the capability of analog tape. What are some of the compositions which have the greatest dynamic range which could challenge the RBCD format? Off the top of my head, perhaps Bach Mass in B minor, Tchaikowsky's 4th, 5th, and 6th sysmphonies, Turandot, perhaps some large Organ works, maybe Saint Seans Organ Concerto, Holst's The Planets? Even all of these seem to have been very well recorded digitally by someone or other and within the dynamic capabilities of RBCD. One thing is certain, to have any chance of exceeding the available range, you have to have a work which is scored for unusually massive forces and is uses them in ways that takes it from ppp of individual voices to fff+++ of the entire ensemble. These are relatively few and far between.

[N. Abstentia]

Sounds like some folks can't actually enjoy listening to music because they're too worried about the techincal aspecs of it. That must suck.

Don't like that CD? Return it and get your money back. Can't do that? Sell it on Ebay. No use in making a federal case over it.

[WmAx]

N. Abstentia]Sounds like some folks can't actually enjoy listening to music because they're too worried about the techincal aspecs of it. That must suck.

Audible clipping, making fuzz sounds is just not apprciable by myself. Maybe such a defect would not bother you?

Don't like that CD? Return it and get your money back. Can't do that? Sell it on Ebay. No use in making a federal case over it

That's right. Everybody knows that when you turn your back to a problem and ignore it, it gets better all by itself.

-Chris

[skeptic]

If you reject recordings which are less than technically excellent by today's standards, you have cut yourself off from some of the greatest performances ever recorded. These are in many genres of music, not just classical but jazz and pop as well. It's unfortunate that at the time many of the greatest known performers who ever lived were able to make recordings, the technology wasn't very good by the standards of the current state of the art. There will undoubtedly come a day when the recording and playback of music is far more advanced than anything we now know. It would be a shame if people weren't interested in the best of today's recordings because of the technical flaws they will see in them. It's sad that for some people these old recordngs can't be just enjoyed for what they are rather than rejected for what they aren't.

[WmAx]

If you reject recordings which are less than technically excellent by today's standards, you have cut yourself off from some of the greatest performances ever recorded. These are in many genres of music, not just classical but jazz and pop as well. It's unfortunate that at the time many of the greatest known performers who ever lived were able to make recordings, the technology wasn't very good by the standards of the current state of the art. There will undoubtedly come a day when the recording and playback of music is far more advanced than anything we now know. It would be a shame if people weren't interested in the best of today's recordings because of the technical flaws they will see in them. It's sad that for some people these old recordngs can't be just enjoyed for what they are rather than rejected for what they aren't.

I openly admit that I am not able to tolerate extreme examples of poor recordings, regardless of the music that is contained within the recording. I am able to tolerate moderately bad examples, if the music is of very high quality(subjectively too me, of course). Hard hitting distortion such as in this Tiereney Sutton CD is beyond my tolerance. Hey, I am willing to look over the annoying compression on this release. The sound of digital clipping distortion? Me, I just can't stand that sound. Too me, I guess this is kind of like fingernails on a chalkboard to some people.

-Chris

[Pat D]

Very interesting admission by Telarc. I thought they would be the last to compromize. I was mistaken. Oh, my.
Dissapointing.

I remember reading something a long time ago, probably Larry Klein in Stereo Review, that a number of CDs will show short term clipped peaks on an oscilloscope--though how much is audible is another question. I believe some of the cannon shots on Ein Straussfest, with Erich Kunzel and the Cincinnati Pops Orchestra, Telarc CD-80098, were said to be clipped. But it was still a great sounding CD the last time I heard it.

[N. Abstentia]

Audible clipping, making fuzz sounds is just not apprciable by myself. Maybe such a defect would not bother you?

That's right. Everybody knows that when you turn your back to a problem and ignore it, it gets better all by itself.

-Chris

Don't like it? Don't buy it.

Hitting my head with a baseball bat bothers me, so I quit doing it.

[Feanor]

I have many very fine cds I enjoy both DDD an ADD. Deutche Gramaphone does an excellent job most of the time. Phillips is very good too although I must admit that there are more flaws in their discs than most other labels. These flaws however seem to me to be the result of poor quality control, not bad recording practice which IMO is also usually excellent.

I'm refering to Philips: 456575, Bartok: Concerto for Orchestra Sz 116 / Ivan Fischer & Budapest Festival Orch.

In this case, though, the quality is due to the recording methods I'm certain. The recording portrays the sound of a real ensemble performing in an actual space. So few producers and engineers even attempt to that, it seems to me!

Maybe I'm wrong, but I attribute the failure to too many, too closely-placed microphones plus complicated mixing and equalization. Fewer, carefully placed mics works better judging by the likes of the Mercury Living Presence recordings for example. From your seat in the concert hall you don't get the same sound as a mic placed a foot away from the violin will pick up -- very different mix of direct and reflected sound for one thing.

[skeptic]

I bought Dave Brubeck's disc "Time Out." It's not so much the over equalized recording that bothers me, it's all the clams he hit. He played like a nervous goose in cut one "Blue Rondo a la Turk." Bad playing is worse than bad recording every time. At least that's the way I see it. Sometimes you can't have everything and if you are too picky, you wind up with nothing.

[Mr Peabody]

I have, nor had, any plans to buy or support SACD or DVD-A and now I am even more intent not to ever support them out of principle. If it is true that consumers have to bare an inferior product so a recording can be played over the air is an outrage. With multi layers or other technology this shouldn't be necessary. Most radio stations are putting their music in computer anyway. They don't care about any sound quality. And I totally disagree with the statement Telarc shouldn't be singled out. Them and Sheffield tout themselves as being superior recording and sound quality. If they are just another commercial CD company then they misrepresent themselves which is also fraud. What about these guys who paid big bucks for a solid gold disc? They certainly thought they were buying something special. Telarc and so called "superior or audiophile" companies like them who put out an inferior product under the guise of high quality are guilty as hell of fraud and deception and even more so than your average recording company. When you buy Kid Rock you may not expect an audiophile recording but when you buy Telarc you do. I think it is time consumers quit letting these companies in our pockets at their will. If I knew in the 80's that vinyl could sound like I hear it now on my Rega turntable, I wouldn't have jumped on the CD bandwagon, at least until they quit pressing it. My collection is large enough with vinyl and CD that I fully intend not to go with another format. Especially, one that is being forced on the public with deception. If you don't want to believe it is deception that's on you, but it is at least sabotage to the compact disc and it's potential sound quality.

[Mr Peabody]

Why would consumers jump on the SACD bandwagon when this format could go down the same path as CD, in regard to too high levels and inferior quality? I think Chris brought up a very valid question. Why wouldn't Telarc a so called "audiophile" recording company want a recording to sound it's very best on whatever format? Unless they have another motive. I found Bishop's excuse extremely lame. Either you like Sutton or you don't. What does Krall or Jones have to do with me buying Sutton? It's BS. I personally wrote Bishop a nastygram and my whole perspective has been compromised

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

It would appear that it is a misconception to believe that audio content to be distributed to the staton needs to be highly compressed. Perhaps a perpetuated myth of sorts.

No, I don't think so. The quality of radio stations compressors/limiters all over the world varies. Most of them do not sound very good, and can really change the flavor(and timbre)of a mix. The harder these limiter/compressors have to work, the worse they sound. So the smart thing to do is to master the CD using GOOD compression/limiting so as to limit the need for limiting/compression at the radio station level. This way you know it what it will pretty much sound like when played over the air.

Based on the following sources(i have read others, but these two are the most authoritive IMO), I can only conlude that a CD, for example, that has absolute levels pushed to the limits and features high comporession will be reduced by the station processors.

If that were the case, then nobody would request that we push the levels. Also doing a mix especially for radio stations will require less use of the stations limiter/compressor. In the long run this makes the product sound better over the air.

A correctly recorded CD will be compressed, and reduced in dynamic range, and overall levels will remain the same as the 'pushed' audio disc when compared. It seems that authorities suggest that the highly compressed audio disc will actually suffer significant degradation since it wil be subjected to another stage of compression before it is transmitted.

A mix that is sent to the station uncompressed will be at the mercy of the stations compressor. As I have previously stated, the quality of these compressors/limiters are all over the map. It may sound fairly decent coming from one station, and like crap from another. If the product sounds like crap, then that equals to lost sales. No recording/mastering house/engineer can afford that to happen too many times.

Roy Orban(CEO/Cheif Engineer of Orban Electronics(designs and manufactures most of the equipment used to equalize teh levels for radio stations before it is transmitted) stated this in the manual of the Optimod FM 8400 Broadcast Audio Processor:

Bob Katz(a mastering engineer known for producing high quality works):

I am VERY familar with Bob Katz, he is very well respected within the industry. Roy Orban's word can only be taken where his products are concerned. There are many products on the market that do what his does. If a station has other products, then all bets are off with his word. One thing you find out pretty quickly in this industry is that everyone has an opinion, and everyone seems to have a rebuttal.

I am open to reading information from other authorities, to possibly change my view of this matter. However, Roy Orban is pretty high up the food chain, considering he makes/designs most of this equipment.

Orban electronix is just one company of many that makes good broadcasting equipment. I would not call myself a formost expert on radio broadcasting equipment.

I don't automaticly believe anyone, but (1) I am not willing to investigate the equipment and standards in place and calculate the actual effects - i am just not THAT interested (2) It seems that Mr. Orban should be an accurate source of information considering his relation to this matter.

I think his opinion is one of many I have heard. Since this is not my area of expertise, his word is just as good as any.

Thank you. This was a very interesting thread. I found reading the perspective of various professional to be enlightening.

No prob. I just wanted you to see how frustrated we engineers get when we have to make compromises to satisfy our clients. We have a tough balancing act between quality and customer satisfaction. I think that is often overlooked by quality conscious consumers like yourself.

I do admit that I am making a good deal of speculation on what I think is fair and unfair. I understand the business pressures, too. However, I was upset that a known audiophile company was found to be doing the same thing as the mainstream pop record companies. This thread is a way of venting, for me. :-)
-Chris

Chris, I really understand your frustration. Put yourself in my shoes, I work really hard to do a high quality mix, then have to make compromises due to the media source its going to, and to please my client. Most of the time the client is happy, but I am not.

[WmAx]

Why would consumers jump on the SACD bandwagon when this format could go down the same path as CD, in regard to too high levels and inferior quality? I think Chris brought up a very valid question. Why wouldn't Telarc a so called "audiophile" recording company want a recording to sound it's very best on whatever format? Unless they have another motive. I found Bishop's excuse extremely lame. Either you like Sutton or you don't. What does Krall or Jones have to do with me buying Sutton? It's BS. I personally wrote Bishop a nastygram and my whole perspective has been compromised

What exactly is a nastygram?

Here is my reply to Mr. Bishop, that was sent after I recieved the email that is posted in teh beginning of this thread:

Thank you for the reply from Mr. Bishop. I will take advantage of the SACD
trade that was offered. I would prefer a refund, of course, since I do not
own a SACD capable play device. Please let me know what steps I need to
take. BUt please forward the rest of this message to Mr. Bishop:

REPLY To Mr. Bishop:

"I checked the waveform example of the piano "distortion." In my opinion,
what is seen there is the peak limiting and "soft clipping" imposed in the
CD mastering process on this particular release..."

" The piano is not distorted... If that was the case one would see jagged
artifacts around the
piano level "peak" rather than the level simply stopping 0.10 dB from the
peak."

"Of course, this does not mean that such a high peak will not cause
distortion on some playback systems. That's entirely possible and is
something out of our control."

The highly audible distortion remains in all of these following cases: (1)
playing CD in all players I have access (2) ripping waveform to computer,
playing back through soundcard (3) reducing maximum level slightly of the
waveform in a waveform editor, playing back on soundcard.

Indeed, I believe this is easily preventable. Simply could have (1) limited
the peaks (2) reduced absolute levels before downsampling(this is the proper
method)

"The Tierney Sutton "Dancing in the Dark" CD release is put up side-by-side
with Diana Krall and Norah Jones releases and other similar jazz vocal CDs.
Like it or not, those CDs are quite heavily compressed and limited (much
more so than the Sutton CD) and have very high apparent volumes. They also
exhibit an even more pronounced cut-off of peak levels. Since Tierney's CD
will be put in multi-disc CD players alongside these other CDs, we have to
make sure her CD stands at least a chance of being as "present" as the
competition and still maintain as much of the dynamics of my original mixes
as possible. "

I don't understand. Competition of what? I simply do not believe consumer
are this stupid to put a CD into the player and believe the quiter one is
'bad' compared to the louder one. (1) You mean radio play? If so, this is
not valid. Radio broadcast music is heavily compressed/limited before it is
transmitted. As far as I know, this is a universal standard. Diffeernt
levels on the CD istels will not manifest itself on broadcast end-use. (2)
The telarc consumer, i would speculate, is more discriminating then the
average consumer. I can not see this trickery as being effective.

I think Bob Katz has some very good points on this issue:

http://www.digido.com/portal/pmodule_id=11/pmdmode=fullscreen/pageadder_page_id=93/?PHPSESSID=8a7653fe7dab1838c00ed4aeb7310fc8

"It's a very delicate balancing act. Certainly compromises
are made, just as in any other mainstream CD that has high apparent volume
level. "

I'm sorry to see such things happening with what I always considered a
label(telarc) that prioritized ultimate sound quality.

"I know one would find much more aggregious level compression taking
place on most mainstream CDs than what you would find on "Dancing in the
Dark."

Yes. Why I always trusted Telarc to have high quality. I guess I have to
change this view in response to this email.

"If you are interested, the DSD stereo and surround programs on the SACD
release of "Dancing in the Dark" (SA-63592) do NOT have this competitive
compression imposed on the audio. The DSD programs represent what I
recorded in the mixes from the sessions without the compromises needed on
the CD-only release. However, the CD layer of the SACD is exactly the same
as the CD-only release. To access the DSD programs, one needs the
appropriate SACD player which is available at major electronic retailers
starting at around $200 USD, although I never recommend that one gets the
"bottom-of-the-line" player."

I have a CD player that functions perfectly. It is rediculous that I must
purchase a new format player to get versions of the albums that ARE NOT
purposefully degraded.

"I hope you have the opportunity to hear the DSD program of this release.
That is, after all, the source I had recorded at Ms. Sutton's sessions and
the pcm CD is a derivative of that source."

I have paid close attention to the playback formats, and associated
scientific research(NHK labs study, Ooashi nueroscicnce study and the
original 1978 optimal bandwidth study(JAES). Besides the multi-channel
format and copy protection(not advantage to consumers, only for record
companies) I don't see any yet confirmed advantage to the added bandwidth. I
also don't see how 16 bit wordlength is limiting for audio playback,e
speciallly when combined with modern dithering techniques. Even if it was a
problem, seems that these PURPOSEFULLY compromised and compressed versions
of music supercede this issue.

Thank you for responding.

-Chris XXXXX

THis email was sent right after I recieved the initial reply. I should have been more specific when i referenced the suggestion of limiting. I also should have referenced time markers in a sample track that are, indeed at 0dB, not 0.1 as he asserts. I consider this an oversight/error on my part. However, I was 'steamed'. You are never as coherant when hot headed.

-Chris

[WmAx]

No, I don't think so. The quality of radio stations compressors/limiters all over the world varies. Most of them do not sound very good, and can really change the flavor(and timbre)of a mix. The harder these limiter/compressors have to work, the worse they sound. So the smart thing to do is to master the CD using GOOD compression/limiting so as to limit the need for limiting/compression at the radio station level. This way you know it what it will pretty much sound like when played over the air.

Thank you for your opinion.

If that were the case, then nobody would request that we push the levels. Also doing a mix especially for radio stations will require less use of the stations limiter/compressor. In the long run this makes the product sound better over the air.

I refer to the authorities I just quoted.

I think his opinion is one of many I have heard. Since this is not my area of expertise, his word is just as good as any.

Everyone has to pick a side 'blindly' when a certain level of ignorance is present. In this case, it seems we are both ignorant of the actual low level behaviours of the typical radio pre-broadcast processor. Whether Bob Katz and Roy Orban are just BSing the best, or not, they seem the most convincing too me in this case.

Chris, I really understand your frustration. Put yourself in my shoes, I work really hard to do a high quality mix, then have to make compromises due to the media source its going to, and to please my client. Most of the time the client is happy, but I am not

I do understand. I have had to release creative work many times that I was ashamed of, but was forced to produce, if I wanted to get a check. Simply put: it sucks.

-Chris

[Mr Peabody]

Chris;

You have to do what is best for you, I however feel it is foolish to accept Telarc's offer for exchange. You are going to have to spend money to upgrade to a new SACD player, Bishop said the same distortion was on the CD layer of the SACD. If what you assert is true about playing unfair, why would you want to go along with it? I admit I am disappointed and confused about your news. I am stubborn though, I would eat the $15. for the CD and tell Bishop to shove the SACD.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Everyone has to pick a side 'blindly' when a certain level of ignorance is present. In this case, it seems we are both ignorant of the actual low level behaviours of the typical radio pre-broadcast processor. Whether Bob Katz and Roy Orban are just BSing the best, or not, they seem the most convincing too me in this case.

I have no don't doubt for one moment that Bob Katz is correct. However he speaks STRICTLY from a techinical stand point of view, and that is usually NOT the position the producer, or the marketing department is coming from. The level war was not created by mixers and mastering engineers, it was created by marketing and producers. In the link you have provided, every example that he sites with good levels for high quality reproduction came BEFORE the marketing departments of major record labels gained a larger share of the decision making in the production of product. I don't think Bob Katz is BSing, I just don't think he is painting the larger picture very well.

Every radio station in the world is not filled full of Orban products. There are MANY MANY different manufacturers of broadcasting equipment. Everyone of these guys has an opinion about broadcasting standards, equipment, and how they are employed in the field. You can if you desire take both of these gentlemens words as absolute, or you can listen to the thousands of other which offer a differing opinion of the subject matter. As I have stated earlier this business if full of opinions, and those that rebutt them. If it makes you more comfortable to grab one person's words, and make that word. Then by all means do so. But there are others out there with opinons just as valid as Katz and Orban who would argue that you are being just a little short sighted in your beliefs.

And I totally disagree with the statement Telarc shouldn't be singled out. Them and Sheffield tout themselves as being superior recording and sound quality. If they are just another commercial CD company then they misrepresent themselves which is also fraud

Have you read ANY of the content in this thread. How in the heck do you think that Telarc and Sheffield are immune to any market driven compromises. They are business as well as record companies. Do you think it is wise for them NOT to compete with the other record companies, and then go out of business just to satisfy you? That's unreasonable, as it is for you to blame them specifically. There is racism and greed in the world, can I blame you as part of the problem since you exist in the world? I don't think so. Telarc and Sheffield didn't create this problem, all they are doing is competing againist other's who not only initiated it(marketing depts and producers), but continue to drive it.

If you do not understand compromise based on competition, then I am not going to waste my time explaining it. You live in a world driven by competition, you should understand this well or you have been living in a cave.

[Mr Peabody]

You can blame me for racism, if I was one who took part in it. Your analogy don't hold water.

What is the big competition? Either you like an artist or you don't. Do you all shop by label? Someone might if they were looking for an exceptional recording, that is where Telarc and Sheffield have dropped the ball. They built their reputation on supposedly giving consumers the best recordings possible. I mean, do they get a brass ring for making the hottest recording levels? What is the point? If they wanted to compete, it seems the best sound quality would win. It's not like you're about the see Sutton on the AMA's doing a duet with Nelly, she's not exactly mainstream. That's pure crap Bishop unloaded about competing.

Does anyone know what the advantage of a hot recording is? What will I hear in comparison to a recording with lower levels? I've done thousands of recordings and I notice that too low will sound thin and sometimes tinny, too high produces distortions, there is a correct zone for a good recording.

I can't really believe the hot levels are for the broadcast industry because there are probably tons of recordings that were made before the big high level push, does that mean they don't get played anymore? What if broadcasters start playing SACD, does that mean SACD sound will be sacraficed on the same alter as CD? Many larger market stations don't even play CD anymore, it's all automated on computer. And again Telarc and simular high end recording companies don't exactly have top 100 artists, so Bishop's excuse don't fly.

Bishop claims to be competing with artists like Norah Jones and Diana Krall, I would be interested to know if anyone noticed if they have these high record levels. I have Norah Jones, I thought the recording sounded great. Especially when compared to more popular recording artists.

[WmAx]

Chris;

You have to do what is best for you, I however feel it is foolish to accept Telarc's offer for exchange. You are going to have to spend money to upgrade to a new SACD player, Bishop said the same distortion was on the CD layer of the SACD. If what you assert is true about playing unfair, why would you want to go along with it? I admit I am disappointed and confused about your news. I am stubborn though, I would eat the $15. for the CD and tell Bishop to shove the SACD.

Hold on now! When I say I was going to buy a SACD player? I might. But not now(I need to buy a new pair of headphones at the moment). However, the very least I can do is take the SACD version, factory sealed, and sell it on ebay. :-)

-Chris

[WmAx]

I have no don't doubt for one moment that Bob Katz is correct. However he speaks STRICTLY from a techinical stand point of view, and that is usually NOT the position the producer, or the marketing department is coming from...

If it makes you more comfortable to grab one person's words, and make that word. Then by all means do so. But there are others out there with opinons just as valid as Katz and Orban who would argue that you are being just a little short sighted in your beliefs...

I will have to ask you to clarify these seemingly conflicting statements. Do you mean that Bob Katz is absolutely correct, technically? But then you assert others out their have opinions just as valid as Katz that will argue with this.....

Perhaps you mean purely on the issue of the ignorant marketing department, producers and program directors? Not the tecnical issues?

-Chris

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I will have to ask you to clarify these seemingly conflicting statements. Do you mean that Bob Katz is absolutely correct, technically? But then you assert others out their have opinions just as valid as Katz that will argue with this.....

Perhaps you mean purely on the issue of the ignorant marketing department, producers and program directors? Not the tecnical issues?

-Chris

Chris, I do not think that calling marketing departments "ignorant" is particularly wise. It is easy for you to sit where you do, and evaluate what they do, and critisize it. You would find it infinitely harder to sit in their seat and take the same perspective that you have now.

As far as Bob Katz, there is no conflicting statement at all. Bob Katz strictly talks about levels in terms of ultimate sound quality. What he does not speak of is the role that the marketing departments have played in this level war, the influence of a customers decision on the mastering engineer, and meeting customer needs so you can stay in business. He presents one perspective, but he doesn't discuss the influence the others put on that one.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You can blame me for racism, if I was one who took part in it. Your analogy don't hold water.

Sorry Mr Peabody, but my analogy is spot on. You are singling out two companies out of a whole industry to castigate to no end about a problem they didn't start, and could not change even if they wanted to. Keeping things in perspective, Telarc and Sheffield are a pimple on the butt when you look at where their standing is industry wide.

What is the big competition? Either you like an artist or you don't.

This shows how little you know about both the record industry, and the broadcast industry.

Do you all shop by label? Someone might if they were looking for an exceptional recording, that is where Telarc and Sheffield have dropped the ball.

Why are you pulling the Sheffield label into this? Who mentioned them as part of the level war? They don't record pop music, and nobody has found a single title of their with the same problem that Chris found on a SINGLE CD. Secondly a person would have to be living in a cave to believe that Telarc and Sheffield were the only two companies turning out excellent recordings. What about Nimbus, Decca, Mobile Fidelity, London,Chesky, and so many others? What about the SACD that Telarc(or any other record company has produced. Since you don't even own a player, you don't know the quality of their recording in that format.

They built their reputation on supposedly giving consumers the best recordings possible. I mean, do they get a brass ring for making the hottest recording levels? What is the point? If they wanted to compete, it seems the best sound quality would win.

If you check out Telarc's earlier(and even newly) CLASSICAL(their specialty) offerings on CD, you will find that the quality of their recordings are exemplary. If you listen to ALL of Telarcs SACD recordings as I have, you wouldn't doubt one bit the fact that they turn out some of the most well recorded product out there.

Sorry, but brass rings do not keep record companies in business. Just like with every other business, either you adopt to the market trends, or you go out of business. This is business 101. Right now SOME jazz, and most of all pop has the levels up to increase the impact of its broadcast over the air waves. This is what the artists want, the producers want, and ultimately what the record companies are asking for as a result.

If the average consumer went for quality only, there would be no 16/44.1khz redbook CD's(24/96khz multichannel sounds better). There would be no vinyl records(24/96khz multichannel sounds better) no Dolby Digital(it doesn't sound as good as CD, and 24/96khz Dts sounds better) no VHS(DVD looks better) no laserdisc(DVD looks better) and for that matter no DVD(Film and D-VHS both look better). Since all that has been mentioned has been around, it just goes to show that quality has not been much of a driving force for the average cosumers. Convience and value has always topped the list over sound quality. To add insult to injury, most would prefer downloadable MP3 over CD.(this is according to a study done by RIAA)

That's pure crap Bishop unloaded about competing.

What experience or education do you have that brings you to this conclusion. How many CD's, soundtracks etc have you mixed and mastered? Have you ever produced? Do you run a record company? Have you ever done a mix destined for broadcast?

Does anyone know what the advantage of a hot recording is?
What will I hear in comparison to a recording with lower levels?

The advantage of hot recording and using compression is that the music no matter what the volume, will stay above above the noise floor of the radio medium. Radio tends to have a rather high noise floor, and lower levels(and no use of compression) tends to make softer mixes sound murky, and indistinct as it get's buried in the noise.

I've done thousands of recordings and I notice that too low will sound thin and sometimes tinny, too high produces distortions, there is a correct zone for a good recording.

If this is true, then I would not have to explain so much to you. This is information that is known by every working engineer in the business.

I can't really believe the hot levels are for the broadcast industry because there are probably tons of recordings that were made before the big high level push, does that mean they don't get played anymore?

No, they are still played. They however do not have as much punch and power when played back over the air as the ones that are mastered at a higher level.

What if broadcasters start playing SACD, does that mean SACD sound will be sacraficed on the same alter as CD?

Since this is not common practice, who knows. I highly doubt that radio stations will play SACD. Its broader frequency response, and dynamic range could be very upsetting to studio electronics.

Many larger market stations don't even play CD anymore, it's all automated on computer.

How do you think it gets on those computer? A genie? Radio stations just don't go out and buy computers loaded full of top ten hits you know. The use CD's to download onto computers.

And again Telarc and simular high end recording companies don't exactly have top 100 artists, so Bishop's excuse don't fly.

I think Michael Bishop is a little smarter and more experienced at this than you are, so you are in no position to decide what flies, and what does not. If any of his product is destined for radio(and the particular example that Chris points out is) then it must compete with other product destined for radio.

Bishop claims to be competing with artists like Norah Jones and Diana Krall, I would be interested to know if anyone noticed if they have these high record levels. I have Norah Jones, I thought the recording sounded great. Especially when compared to more popular recording artists.

I don't know about Diana Krall, but I do know about Norah Jones "Come away with me", Yes the dynamics are somewhat restricted, and the overall level is higher than some of my older CD's. Once again, your feeble attempts at making this a solo practice of Telarcs is futile. If you read any of the previous posts, there is a link that talk about this in detail.

Mr Peabody, for a person who claims to have done thousands of recordings, you know amazing little about how the industry operates. It amazes me that in your thousands of mixes that you have never done one destined for a radio station, and have no knowledge of how to master for radio broadcast. Most of what I have posted here is common knowledge amoung mixers, and mastering professionals. The practice of recording "hot" for radio broadcast has been around for years now, discussed to death amoung engineers, and frowned upon by us who enjoy quality over quantity. It surprises me somewhat to know that you have such extensive recording experience, and no knowledge of this practice. Where have YOU been all of these years?

[gonefishin]

Bishop claims to be competing with artists like Norah Jones and Diana Krall, I would be interested to know if anyone noticed if they have these high record levels. I have Norah Jones, I thought the recording sounded great. Especially when compared to more popular recording artists.

Hi Mr Peabody


I have noticed extremely high recording levels on various CD's. The Norah Jones Album (aheem...cd) in particular. Not only is the main body of music recorded "louder" but the dynamic range of the recorded is p!ss poor too.
It's a shame that the recording industry is going toward recording everything sooo hot. CD format is actually capable of producing some pretty nice sound...but if you record the music so dang hot...your getting rid of one of the advantages right off the bat. What a shame!


ok...I'll stop now...but it is a darn shame

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Why would consumers jump on the SACD bandwagon when this format could go down the same path as CD, in regard to too high levels and inferior quality?

Aren't you being just a little dramatic here. The format is in its infancy, and you already have it following the same path as the CD. Do the words drama king mean anything here?

I think Chris brought up a very valid question. Why wouldn't Telarc a so called "audiophile" recording company want a recording to sound it's very best on whatever format?

I cannot believe that you have done thousands of recordings and cannot answer this question for yourself. I think that Telarc does turn out recordings that sound very good indeed. The raised levels does not change that. Raising the level does not always compromise sound quality, and it is disengenous for you to implicate that in an indirect way.

Unless they have another motive. I found Bishop's excuse extremely lame. Either you like Sutton or you don't. What does Krall or Jones have to do with me buying Sutton? It's BS. I personally wrote Bishop a nastygram and my whole perspective has been compromised

Nastygrams are childish, ineffective, and serve no purpose. From what I have gathered from your postings, you do not know much about the industry, so that makes you ill qualified to decide if Michael's excuse is lame or not. You don't own a SACD player, so you cannot judge the quality of the higher resolution format in comparison to the CD platform. Based on this, it seems that your complaining about all of this is rather lame itself. Before Chris even bought the topic up, you didn't even know the practice existed!, Now all of a sudden CD's are vile, compromised products, and you are just totally outraged, everyone in the music industry is a evil demon(with Telarc and Sheffield being baal himself) and you are not going to support the high resolution formats. This is good.....