Slashdot Mirror

You can generally look up which releases are overly compressed online.

http://dr.loudness-war.info/

The 80s was a golden age in many ways. I've got an original Brothers in Arms release and it sounds incredible, one of the most dynamic albums ever made. Every subsequent re-release and "remaster" ruined it a little bit more.

That's not correct. The problem isn't really the needle jumping, it's the needle wearing quickly and actually wearing down the record too. Heavily clipped tracks look like a square wave, smashing the needle back and forth.

There used to be machines that would tell you if your mix was okay for vinyl based on various standards for its manufacture. These days there are digital plug-ins.

As proof, compare these three versions of the same Santana album:

CD, terrible: http://dr.loudness-war.info/al...
"High def" 48/24 download, awful: http://dr.loudness-war.info/al...
Vinyl, lovely: http://dr.loudness-war.info/al...

You can browse that site for other artists, pretty much all vinyl releases since about 1990 are measurably better than the CD release.

That's not correct. The problem isn't really the needle jumping, it's the needle wearing quickly and actually wearing down the record too. Heavily clipped tracks look like a square wave, smashing the needle back and forth.

There used to be machines that would tell you if your mix was okay for vinyl based on various standards for its manufacture. These days there are digital plug-ins.

As proof, compare these three versions of the same Santana album:

CD, terrible: http://dr.loudness-war.info/al...
"High def" 48/24 download, awful: http://dr.loudness-war.info/al...
Vinyl, lovely: http://dr.loudness-war.info/al...

You can browse that site for other artists, pretty much all vinyl releases since about 1990 are measurably better than the CD release.

That's not correct. The problem isn't really the needle jumping, it's the needle wearing quickly and actually wearing down the record too. Heavily clipped tracks look like a square wave, smashing the needle back and forth.

There used to be machines that would tell you if your mix was okay for vinyl based on various standards for its manufacture. These days there are digital plug-ins.

As proof, compare these three versions of the same Santana album:

CD, terrible: http://dr.loudness-war.info/al...
"High def" 48/24 download, awful: http://dr.loudness-war.info/al...
Vinyl, lovely: http://dr.loudness-war.info/al...

You can browse that site for other artists, pretty much all vinyl releases since about 1990 are measurably better than the CD release.

Ah yes, let's compare that Adele album to Vinyl

So a DR range of 4 ("high def" digital, vs 11 on vinyl).

A DR of 11 is still pretty bad, but it's not as horrifying as you get with the "high def" audio.

You can judge for yourself by looking at a database that quantifies it

Go ahead and look up most of your albums.

An example: Adele's 25, in "High Definition" 24/192 format

Every single track is a victim of the Loudness War.

You can judge for yourself by looking at a database that quantifies it

Go ahead and look up most of your albums.

An example: Adele's 25, in "High Definition" 24/192 format

Every single track is a victim of the Loudness War.

I can sense some snake oil myths here. Two places that everyone even remotely serious about music quality should check out:
- NwAvGuy's blog (it may change your perspective on DIY and Hi-Fi audio quite dramatically)
- dynamic range database

Having some pretty decent gear (DAC, studio monitors and a silent PC - SSDs and passive cooling FTW) I can say that CD quality is fine. The problem lies in garbage quality of today's audio production. Vinyl is (often, but no always) better nowadays because it happens to have better production/mastering. It's a poor choice otherwise. So is SACD and DVD-Audio and whatever if there's only compressed garbage on it.