Compression squeezes the life out of music!
Dynamic range compression isn't new, it's been used by recording, mixing, and mastering engineers for many decades. A little bit of compression is fine, but over-compression can sound downright ugly. Most of today's music, whether it's on LP, CD, the radio or iTunes is over-compressed. Most remastered CDs are over-compressed.
Before we go any further, I'm not referring to the lossy compression used in MP3s, or lossless compression used in Apple Lossless. They've got their own set of problems, but dynamic range compression is a very different predicament.
To the casual listener compression can sound "good," mostly because it makes the music seem louder and punchier, and once music's natural soft-loud dynamic shifts are squashed flat music is easier to hear in noisy environments like cars or over iPods. Compression reduces the need to adjust playback volume--because it's always nearly the same volume--loud.
Engineers worry that if they don't compress their recordings the music would seem too soft and low. That is, if a music listener went from really loud, compressed music to quieter, uncompressed music they probably wouldn't like uncompressed music--unless they turned it up! That way they would hear the music's natural soft-loud dynamics.
Unfortunately, that's not an acceptable scenario to most engineers or record labels. They're addicted to over-compression, it's a hard habit to break.
But the unnatural onslaught of compressed sound obliterates musical nuance, delicacy and emotional power. Compression's loud-all-the-time nature sucks the life out of music.
Here's a great video that demonstrates the evils of compression.
... Read more
What a mess!
(Credit: Gateway)The Gateway KAS-203 home-theater-in-a-box was an exercise in poor design.
I gave it a 5 rating, the lowest CNET score I've ever "awarded" any product I've reviewed. I'll get to the best HTIBs in the next Audiophiliac.
I liked the Euro style receiver/DVD player and the powered subwoofer, but as soon as I heard the KAS-203 it sounded so bad I thought it was broken. A second KAS-203 sounded identical to the first one, so I concluded the first KAS-203 was representative of what people were buying in stores.
On paper at least Gateway's KAS series home theater systems stood out in a field crowded with chintzy, plastic designs. The KAS speaker package featured a bevy of interesting ideas and a subwoofer designed by Hsu Research, a high-value company known for its exemplary subs. The receiver/DVD player boasted the build quality and looks of a serious component, but slipshod engineering and substandard quality control resulted in the most poorly executed $699 HTIB ever.
The sound of the four 5.75 inch tall sats were bolstered by a large center speaker, 16.75 inches wide, 9 deep, and 5.25 high. Rounding out the system was a 17 inch tall, 100 watt powered subwoofer. The entire sub/sat system came in a black ash finish, definitely a step up from the standard sliver plastic HTIB fare.
... Read more
Plug 'em into an iPod or your computer
(Credit: Steve Guttenberg)A couple of days ago I blogged about possibly (hopefully) the world's most expensive speaker, Transmission Audio's Ultimate ($1,000,000 each), so I guess it makes sense to write up a dirt cheap speaker, Kikkerland's Woodchuck iPod/computer speakers.
Thing is, Kikkerland's Web site doesn't list the Woodchuck, but I see it's on Amazon going for $13.99 a pair. So I guess I can't complain too much, but the sound is so weak, bassless, trebleless, and dynamically compressed the Woodchuck is without doubt the lamest sounding speaker I've ever heard. Kinda sounds like the speaker in my Panasonic answering machine.
... Read more
It's big enough to sound great, and cheap enough it's a no-brainer solution for lame sounding TVs.
(Credit: Zvox)I get letters about this all the time.
They usually go something like this: "I'm no audiophile, but can you explain why all of the new, slim, pretty, thin HDTV's sound so bad? I bought a 46-inch Samsung LN46A850 for its great picture, but when I got it home, the sound was tinny. So I bought a sound bar but it had its own issues and I don't want to use multiple remotes. Any ideas?"
The problem is mostly caused by just how skinny these TVs are: There's no room for decent speakers. More than that, I'm sorry to say that sound quality isn't a priority for TV manufacturers, and they know that most buyers accept "good enough" sound. So there's no real demand from consumers to get better sound from TVs. And I guess the manufacturers assume anyone who really cares will spring for a better sound system.
My advice: Check out Zvox speakers; I've reviewed many over the years for CNET. The best bang for the buck model is the 315. It sounds great for $199, and since you can hook it up to the TV's audio outputs, you won't need to use a separate remote (that's also true for some other manufacturers' soundbars).
Consider the 315 only if your TV has a headphone jack--or if its audio output jacks can be set to "variable." Then you'll be able to control the 315's volume with your TV's remote (the 315 doesn't have its own remote).
To learn more about the 315 check out my CNET review.
... Read more
CNET News Poll
You don't need to be an audiophile to hear the difference between average-sounding and great-sounding recordings, but you do have to listen. Really listen.
First try this experiment and set a benchmark: Listen to someone playing an acoustic guitar, in your room. Then play a recording of an acoustic guitar. Notice any difference in the sound quality between the two? Yeah, it's not even close. If your real, live guitar player can sing, next compare the sound of that person's voice to the recording's vocal. The recording's singer will most likely sound small, tonally thin, like the voice is coming out of tiny boxes. It might be hard to tell the singer has a flesh-and-blood body connected to that voice. The live guitar sounds big and clear, very clear, without any edge or harshness. Few recordings of guitar sound like the real thing.
My point here is to first establish a standard of what good sound sounds like to me. I like recordings that sound realistic. After all, if the musician on the record is playing a Gretsch Synchromatic 400 Acoustic Archtop guitar, I'd like to hear its unique sound. But if the producer and engineer recorded the Gretsch through a pickup instead of a microphone, equalized its sound, compressed its dynamic range, added digital reverb, and processed it to death--there won't be much left to the Gretsch's sound. Then it's just a generic guitar, which is why I would describe the sound of the recording as "bad."
... Read more
The worst sounding recording of 2007, so far.
Iffy sound quality isn't a new problem. Bad sound can't directly be blamed on digital, analog, vinyl, CD, or even MP3. Those are release formats; the quality of the recording itself is what I'm talking about.
Granted, personal taste plays a big part in defining good or bad sound. For every person who says the sound is clear and detailed, there's another who thinks it's ragged and harsh.
That said, the trend of late is toward spitty distortion, the kind that obscures the sound of the vocals and instruments, and buries them in grunge. I'm not opposed to grit that adds an edge to music, but I can't stand recordings made by people who either don't know what they're doing or are too deaf to notice the error of their ways.
Bob Dylan, of all people, agrees with me.
"You listen to these modern records--they're atrocious, they have sound all over them. There's no definition of nothing, no vocal, no nothing, just like--static," Dylan said in a Rolling Stone interview with Jonathan Lethem in September 2006.
He's not just referring to other people's records; he included his own record, "Modern Times," in his rant: "Even these songs probably sounded 10 times better in the studio when we recorded 'em." I believe Dylan. That album was a blurry wall of sound. You can hardly hear individual instruments.
The worst recording of 2009 so far--it's still early--is the Heartless Bastards' "The Mountain" CD. It's too bad because I really like the music. It rocks hard, and I love Erika Wennerstrom's strange voice, but there's severe distortion whenever she sings loud.
The distortion was so incredibly annoying that my speakers' tweeters sounded broken. If the distortion just appeared on the hard-edged, bluesier numbers, I might have thought that it was intentional, but the sound was just as ragged on "So Quiet," in which Wennerstrom is accompanied by violin.
... Read more- prev
- 1
- next
