If an album is released in vinyl alongside CD, can one presume it isn’t compressed?

Can one presume which isn’t compressed?

Vinyl may be compressed to keep the stylus movement within appropriate limits. CD usually need have no compression. But for some reason better known to mastering engineers, CDs are often compressed (most notably in the recent so-called “loudness war” aiming at having a high average level allegedly because it made for better airplay).  Any compression applied at the time of recording will apply to both media, while if the same mastering is used For both vinyl and CD the compression will be the same - otherwise the two media could independently have any degree of compression at the whim of the producer.

Well explained- kind of makes distinguishing between well recorded CDs and poor ones more challenging.

Agree with IB. Vinyl's physical limitations inherently require bass compression simply to keep the stylus in the groove. CD is essentially limitless. Somehow the recording industry has evolved into the very opposite. Modern CDs are loudness mastered and highly compressed. Modern vinyl is typically mastered with greater dynamic range than its CD counterpart. Go figure.

While airplay is often blamed as the progenitor for the loudness wars, I attribute this primarily to Apple, i-Tunes downloads, and the prevalence of MP3 as the mass modern standard for music replay.

As far as soundtracks and compilations, the masterer has to distill a widely varying degree of recording qualities (often from different eras) and give them an overall homogenous sound. He or she equalizes each track to make the album play cohesively. The net result of this process can only be a SQ compromise for individual tracks.

Innocent Bystander posted:

Can one presume which isn’t compressed?

Vinyl may be compressed to keep the stylus movement within appropriate limits. CD usually need have no compression. But for some reason better known to mastering engineers, CDs are often compressed (most notably in the recent so-called “loudness war” aiming at having a high average level allegedly because it made for better airplay).  Any compression applied at the time of recording will apply to both media, while if the same mastering is used For both vinyl and CD the compression will be the same - otherwise the two media could independently have any degree of compression at the whim of the producer.

IB, the loudness wars refers to a once popular but outdated compression technique to maximise power density in a recording at the expense of dynamic range (according to stats I read most heavily used in the mid nineties to early noughties ... it was most used for radio and TV music video broadcasts where tracks were  competing.  However now within Europe via the EBU , and possibly elsewhere, regulations have been introduced on loudness, and this requires average power level to be controlled so there is consistency of apparent volume across various media sources. An overly compressed track from a master or video can now sound a bit lame and lifeless with new loudness management regs.. and so masters tend to accentuate or even compand dynamic range to make the track stand out....  

just compare the bass line and percussion on many recent masters to say those of 15 years ago... themodern track often sounds more lively and punchy. Obviously there are exceptions, but I am referring to overall trends. Again the AES has a few interesting articles on this as well.

pits funny how things change 

to the point on Joerand’s compilation challenges... yes consistently compiling masters from different eras and fads I can see being quite a challenge.

Any mastering process involves a form of compression. Recording of drums, bass, guitars to some extent, vocals will be compressed already at the recording stage. Live music, pumped through the FOH speakers will also be compressed....

Compression is not necessarily a bad thing - if applied wisely.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

 the loudness wars refers to a once popular but outdated compression technique to maximise power density in a recording at the expense of dynamic range (according to stats I read most heavily used in the mid nineties to early noughties ... it was most used for radio and TV music video broadcasts where tracks were  competing.  .... just compare the bass line and percussion on many recent masters to say those of 15 years ago... themodern track often sounds more lively and punchy.

Simon, I've heard you put forth this premise before, once based on an article you cited. Nonetheless, I tend to disagree foremost with bass compression. While some degree of increased dynamic range may be creeping back into newer releases, the level of what I find to be excessive bass compression remains. We may each have different views on where the compression occurs; overall dynamic range, Adam noted its use on vocals, but for me the overriding compression in modern music still exists on bass. Bass compressed to a level that it dominates the musical background and detracts from the overall clarity of the recording, regardless of the dynamic range.

Two recent case in points for me are the vinyl releases of Paul Simon's "Stranger To Stranger" (2016) and David Gilmour's "Rattle That Lock" (2015). Both artists noted for exceptional SQ throughout their catalogs. Despite better overall dynamic range on the LP versus CD of these releases, the vinyl plays with excessive bass compression relative to their prior stuff. To my mind these albums were mastered for a modern audience with the expectation of pronounced bass and bottom percussion. Unfortunately, compared to vintage classic rock recordings where bass guitar and bass drum played with aplomb and focus, the modern bass has no defined attack or decay, shakes and rumbles, and sounds less like a plucked or struck musical instrument than a tremolo-enforced sound effect. That hasn't changed. I'd say it's become the standard.

The compression of vinyl bass mentioned by IB is compensated for by the RIAA curve, so should not be apparent to the listener.

Dozey posted:

The compression of vinyl bass mentioned by IB is compensated for by the RIAA curve, so should not be apparent to the listener.

No, I mean compression of overall dynamic range not the frequency related skewing of RIAA, which indeed should be inaudible after replay processong. 

In addition there is sometimes frequency related compression, or it may be just bass cutting, typically encounted in sampler albums where they try to squeeze 39 minutes per side.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Can one presume which isn’t compressed?

Vinyl may be compressed to keep the stylus movement within appropriate limits. CD usually need have no compression. But for some reason better known to mastering engineers, CDs are often compressed (most notably in the recent so-called “loudness war” aiming at having a high average level allegedly because it made for better airplay).  Any compression applied at the time of recording will apply to both media, while if the same mastering is used For both vinyl and CD the compression will be the same - otherwise the two media could independently have any degree of compression at the whim of the producer.

IB, the loudness wars refers to a once popular but outdated compression technique to maximise power density in a recording at the expense of dynamic range (according to stats I read most heavily used in the mid nineties to early noughties ... it was most used for radio and TV music video broadcasts where tracks were  competing.  However now within Europe via the EBU , and possibly elsewhere, regulations have been introduced on loudness, and this requires average power level to be controlled so there is consistency of apparent volume across various media sources. An overly compressed track from a master or video can now sound a bit lame and lifeless with new loudness management regs.. and so masters tend to accentuate or even compand dynamic range to make the track stand out....  

just compare the bass line and percussion on many recent masters to say those of 15 years ago... themodern track often sounds more lively and punchy. Obviously there are exceptions, but I am referring to overall trends. Again the AES has a few interesting articles on this as well.

pits funny how things change 

to the point on Joerand’s compilation challenges... yes consistently compiling masters from different eras and fads I can see being quite a challenge.

I was aware of the “loudness war”, which indeed I understood to be lagely in the past now, but not the loudness regulating to which you refer - interesting, though I am a bit puzzled as to the concept of normalising across sources where sources like video soundtracks have a different function. I’ll have to do some reading.

As for compressing and expanding to make parts of the mix stand out, that has been there of course since studios first had the technology, though the emphasis presumably goes with music fashions, and when done at the initial mix stage I would assume applies equally to vinyl and CD - unless, and maybe here’s the rub, the two media are seen by the record producers as  having different audiences, perhaps CD being perceived as mostly for playing in lesser systems and so compressed more, in which case the music companies are guilty of desecrating the superior sonic capability of CD.

Adam Zielinski posted:

Any mastering process involves a form of compression. Recording of drums, bass, guitars to some extent, vocals will be compressed already at the recording stage. Live music, pumped through the FOH speakers will also be compressed....

Compression is not necessarily a bad thing - if applied wisely.

Spot on answer . Heavy compression is awful, but a small degree of compression is usually necessary,  I am led to believe.

Wugged Woy posted:

Adam Zielinski posted:

Any mastering process involves a form of compression. Recording of drums, bass, guitars to some extent, vocals will be compressed already at the recording stage. Live music, pumped through the FOH speakers will also be compressed....

Compression is not necessarily a bad thing - if applied wisely.

Spot on answer . Heavy compression is awful, but a small degree of compression is usually necessary,  I am led to believe.

Thank you

Let’s put it this way - I play a 5 or 6-string bases. The only way I can really tame the low B string, is to have a compressor on at all times. With higher notes, it hardly ever switches on. With low D etc, it blinks madly

And lead guitarists often use compressors to add sustain.

But compression applied by musicians while playing is part of their art, and quite different from compression of recordings after laing down a recording that the artists are happy with, which can happen when making LPs or CDs, and my be different between the media even when there is no technolological reason for there to be.

Doesn’t that imply a fault with the guitar then if it needs compressing?

Consciousmess posted:

Doesn’t that imply a fault with the guitar then if it needs compressing?

I assume you don’t play a guitar / bass, do you?  No - using a compressor on a guitar does not mean it’s faulty.

It’s an effect used to tame louder sounding notes (compress),  occcasionally boost quieter ones to the same level and to add a certain degree of sustain. Generally it helps to even out the attack and a dynamic range of the instrument.

Great stuff! Certainly a constructive discussion on the various implementations of compression used throughout the recording and mastering processes, as well in live music. For me recent compression has largely been a matter of squeezing dynamic range though a narrower window with a heavy emphasis on bass response. Back in the day, McCartney double-tracked his bass recordings for emphasis; much of Abbey Road for example. A warm sounding album, yet with no lack of dynamic range. By comparison, modern recordings typically use both heavy bass compression and reduced dynamic range. Perhaps this is only a SQ issue for baby boomers with vintage accustomed ears. For those reared on all-digital recordings it may seem the norm and no issue whatsoever.

Today, if I wished to buy a given LP or CD, I'd follow this simplest of rules: look for, and buy, the oldest copy available.

Best,

M.

Massimo Bertola posted:

Today, if I wished to buy a given LP or CD, I'd follow this simplest of rules: look for, and buy, the oldest copy available.

Same tenet I follow. Rarely, if ever disappointed.