All I have to say to that is, "sucks for you."

Yeah, not a big fan of digital clipping and white noise.

Hey hushypushy, about lossy vs lossless...

As far as my understanding of the difference goes (and I may well be wrong):

All lossless compression means is that the compressed information isn't discarded, which allows you to decode the original wav form in all it's glory. I didn't, however, think that actually had anything to do with what you hear? That's still dictated by the actual psychoacoustic algorithms that 'decided' which bits (information bits, not colloquial bits) are important enough to be kept, and which bits are to be discarded. So a lossless format with a poor psychoacoustic algorithm would still sound shit compared to a lossy format with a good algorithm - it's just that, you could encode the full wav in the lossless format anyway :D. In lossy, those discarded bits are effectively deleted, meaning file size compression and smaller file sizes; in lossless format, they are kept to allow accurate decoding, meaning compression, but not to the extent of lossy.

Yeah, you're a bit off the mark. You're mixing the two together.

Imagine FLAC, APE, Wavpack, Shorten, and all those other Lossless formats as the same thing as a RAR or a Zip file. In fact, they are exactly the same thing, except those formats are specifically tuned for music (and some allow extra goodies such as tagging and such).

As for the whole sentence before "what bits to be kept"--you're missing one crucial thing: in any lossless file, ALL the bits are kept. Both lossy and lossless compression schemes are tuned for music, it's just that lossy compresses and throws stuff out, whereas lossless just compresses. How does it work? Well, I have no goddamn idea, it's all way beyond my head. I had a hard time passing Algebra 2 in high school, I still can't wrap my head around things like psychoacoustic shaping and the different encoding algorithms.

What I do know, for 100% sure, is that lossless audio files in their compressed state sound exactly the same as their uncompressed WAV buddies. Anyone who tells you otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.

This quote corrects what I was getting wrong - lossless audio compression has nothing to do with the actual audio at all.

http://mp3.radified.com/lossless.htm

As the site says, in a sense, it's actually our terminology that is confusing this. Lossy 'compression' should actually really be called encoding. We re-encode one file to produce another file that just so happens to be smaller. Lossless compression is compression in the truest sense.

I hear the white noise no problem. It's most obvious when the storm fades in on 10,000 Days, and at the beginning of The Pot. Also, I agree with the album having such poor dynamic range, very much unlike Undertow (and the range on Aenima was great too, I think). This album is a lot better on a good stereo system than good headphones, I think.

Ehhh, not really. It's more proper to say "encode to FLAC" because that's what you're doing. Hell, dBpowerAmp says that it encodes from FLAC to WAV; that was always "decoding" in my book. What you're doing with any audio codec (lossy or lossless) is data compression, which is equivalent to encoding. This is completely different from what this thread is talking about which is dynamic range compression. And that is where the confusion is.

A lot better? Well, personally I like each one in different ways. I love listening to it with Pro Logic II mixing it to 5.1....but I also love headphones. For me, it's hard to say. I can't say that either is better, actually.

lol, no I know that, I only asked cos you told someone not to encode to lossy.

Yeah I said not to encode to lossy because in my personal tests, the peaks DO go above 0dB (meaning that they clip) if you encode to lossy. So if you're really that much of a freak about it, keep it lossless. I've been listening to those same songs that claim to have clipping peaks and I still don't hear it, because when it's that minuscule, it's over the instant it started.

I wonder if there really is just a fault batch of CDs. Or just a faulty batch of ears.

We determined that there is no faulty batch, remember? I listened to your lossless rips and heard the same shit.

I totally agree, this was the first cd that i noticed how loud everything was.. and yes there is clipping. I am an audiophile and have very high end equipment and this cd is awful at parts, maily wings for marie and jambi.. vicarious also gets annoying with how distorted it sounds at times.

I honestly think that most of hte problems on this album could be solved by turning Adam's guitar down. All the distortion is Adam's damn fault anyway, and we've already pretty much universally agreed that Danny and Justin are playing some of hte best music of their careers on this album that is getting too burried in the mix. Anyways, as for the static, if you are hearing it on a computer, I suggest one of two things. Either turn the volume of the sound card down (the system volume control, not WInamp, not your speaker volume, the wave device volume on the volume control program) or, get this, turn your speakers UP. It sounds crazy, but i've noticed that the static sounds i hear through this computer on virtually every sound I put through it while the wave volume is at 100% disappears after I turn my speakers up to about a quarter volume. You wouldn't think something like that would work, but it does.

Eh, it needs a bit of work. The mix is phenomenal, top notch stuff. Lack of range still turns me off a bit. I still think as far as production goes, Lateralus owns it. Man, that album has some parts that just hit you so hard, I love it.

"

I agree with you there, but I prefer Lateralus' guitar stuff (it sounds unreal to me) and vocals. I prefer 10,000 Days' drum and bass work. And if I have to pick, it's Lateralus' dynamic range that tips the scales in its favor. Seriously, I had one very very intense Lateralus listening session about two weeks ago that sealed in Lateralus as my #1 best produced album ever....EBA/The Patient, Parabol/a, Lateralus, DRT, they hit me so hard I thought I was gonna fly out of my chair.

Although, 10,000 Days does have an absolutely amazing mix. I love Joe B, his work is ball-rockingly superb. He proved with this album that the magic he put into Kyuss is still there. The mix on The Pot...wow!

I prefer the production on 10,000 Days over the production on Lateralus. On Lateralus the bass is far too faint in the mix and guitars distortion is too high pitched and takes over from the bass even more (take the last 30 seconds of The Grudge for example).

Just something I posted in the Undertow thread......an easy explanation of the loudness war (that this album falls victim to):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ

me neither, thus 10kd sounds like ass.

musically great, but it just sounds horrible.

Undertow is the best produced/engineered albums. My uneducated test is as follows....

Listen to Undertow very loud through good headphones. Almost as loud as you can. Note the clarity & how crisp everything is. Now, switch CDs to 10K days, without turning down the volume, and put on Rosetta Stoned or Jambi, or even 10,000 days itself. Then you can really hear how unecessarily loud 10K days is. Much more distortion.

I noticed this too with 10k Days that in my car stereo the bass is quite distorted if I play it even just a little loud. I was wondering at first even if I had blown a speaker but I didn't because other CD's I had with even more bass sounded completely fine.

Did you watch the video I just posted?? People that say "louder is better" are killing music by creating the demand for this ridiculous, hypercompressed shit. Opiate and Undertow are such great masterings because they let the music breathe, and sure they are quieter than other albums, but I've never had a problem playing that album loud, I'll tell you that.

The fullness of sound has to do with better recording and production techniques, and not so much to do with overcompressing the whole thing.

I don't fall prey to the "louder is better, bass is better" common mantra that's floating around music today. Undertow sounds great to me. If the music is missing some sound, use your EQ. If it's not loud enough, turn the volume up. Complaining about how an album isn't loud enough indicates to me that your speakers just aren't very good...they can't pump out the sound/volume that you want/need.

When an recoding is mastered as close to maximum unclipped volume as possible, is that the same as saying it's "slammed to the wall" as some engineers say??

Thanks for the detective work hushypushy. I've always thought WFM and RS came off VERY hard to get right on my car stereo. Now I know why. :)

What do you think of this?? http://www.digido.com/modules.php?na...howpage&pid=45

-9 dB

Aenima - Tool
Mastered by Bob Ludwig. Engineered by David Bottrill. An example of a progressive metal CD for the 90’s that is not smashed to the wall. The squashing is for artistic effect rather than absolute loudness or mastering volume. A very large dynamic range makes it very attractive. Can be harsh when loud, but that is the sound. Volcano Entertainment, 61422-31087-2, ©1996.

Yes, that's called limiting. It's a form of compression.

And very interesting link there...nice to see Tool ;)

Aenima is a (relatively) badly recorded album, but a superbly mastered album (Well mastered in the sense it contains alot of dynamics and transients ['nice' sound artefacts], whilst still being fairly loud, and maintaining it's quality as the gain is pushed up on home systems).

Conversely, 10,000 Days, is a well recorded album that is badly mastered. (Badly mastered in the sense we're talking here - clipped [made so loud that the waveform gets bigger than digitally possible, getting 'cut' and producing a distorted sound] and squashed [heavily compressed, no dynamic range, louder sections loosing their 'pump' compared to quieter sections, distinct lack of transients]).

Ironically, the same guy mastered both.

Your appreciation of 10,000 Days 'fullness of sound' comes from recording techniques, Adams set up, the overall treatment of the guitars. Alot has gone on production wise in 10 years. Adams guitars are beefier. Also, in Aenima and all the albums prior, they made an effort to keep the recordings close to what they could achieve live. That means there is VERY LITTLE doubling up of the guitars. There might be the odd occassion where it happens, but for the most part, there's only ever one guitar playing. In Lateralus and 10,000 Days, they embraced the studio more, doing alot more double tracking, and producing a generally 'fuller' sound. Notice I said fuller, like you used. This is also a major, major factor on your appreciation of 10,000 Days richness of sound compared to Aenima... Aenima was still better mastered (subjectively).

Hushypushy, I know this thread is pretty dead for you now, but still, I have a few questions after reading through your 'new thoughts' (posted a couple of months ago) and after reading through the thread on Hydrogenaudio. I'll state these questions as 'my conclusions' because it's easier to summise and analyse a point that way.

Again, I profess that my understanding is not full in any sense, so feel free to take my suggestions based on an incomplete knowledge (to save all the daft sniping that went on, on the Hydrogenaudio forum!), I'm just interested to understand your conclusions, because they seem to be based on things I "understand" [;)] to be wrong.

You mentioned the Replaygain values here and imagine you got that from the HA forums. Is it this that has led you concluded that '10,000 Days is as compressed as all the other Tool albums save Undertow'? Because ReplayGain doesn't tell the whole story. The Replygain tells us that Lateralus is only half a decibel quieter at it's loudest than 10K Days. This is only half the story because, if you put on Lateralus and 10,000 Days next to each other, you hear 10,000 Days as 'generally' (read: on average) louder. It's been mentioned on this thread before so you know that the RMS is the average loudness of all the peaks. I believe a fellow on HA takes Ticks and Leeches and Rosetta Stones as a comparison of the 'loudest' tracks, and finds Rosetta to be on average 2.5db louder.

This is consistent with actually listening. As I said earlier in this thread, Lateralus is a quieter album than 10,000 Days, and it is quieter than a number of albums I happen to own (I nearly said 'alot of CDs these days', but for the sake of being PC, I couldnt actually prove that, although I believe it to be true).

Lateralus will have peaks that get up to, or close to, 0db (as proven by your ReplayGain value for Lateralus), but a lower average loudness (as proven by the RMS value) means there must also be more low peaks than 10,000 Days. This means, therefore, that the dynamic range on Lateralus is greater than the dynamic range on 10,000 Days, and therefore, can't be as compressed as it's successor (subjectively proven by our gut instinct when we listen to them).

So basically, I agreed with your initial point, that 10,000 Days is hypercompressed. I agree that this kills it's dynamic range. I disgree with your new conclusion that 10,000 Days is compressed just the same as Lateralus or Aenima. I disagree with your minor point that "Lateralus is loud aswell", because, compared to 10,000 Days (and, as you point out yourself, alot of music these days) it's not. It is quieter on average, and that is exactly how it preserves it's dynamic range.

Well the thing is, Replaygain doesn't tell the entire story. My rip of 10kd is -7.87dB says RG (it will vary slightly depending on codec used to encode), which is actually not too bad. I just checked a FLAC rip of Primus' Brown Album (renowned for its extraordinary production) and it's -7.82dB, and none of the peaks are at 100%, most are in the low 90s and two are 97/98%. My Lateralus is -6.97dB, and its dynamic range is far greater than 10kd.

So let's stop looking at numbers and equations for a second and just listen with your ears. Turn on 10,000 Days, listen to Vicarious and set it to a suitable volume. Then listen to the album. Is there ever any dynamic range? Wings gets a little quieter...the segues are sort of quiet, and Intension is quiet. Everything else is loud to the max. Now do the same for Lateralus. EBA is quiet, The Patient starts out medium and gets LOUD, Parabol is quiet and leads into Parabola which is LOUD (I treat them as one song btw), even Schism has more loud/soft than Vicarious. Listen to DRT....Disposition is a very quiet track and Reflection has loud and soft parts. I don't know if I've said this yet, but I had a very intense Lateralus listen on my HD555's some weeks ago and I was absolutely blown away by the production of that album...The Patient in particular, that became my new favorite Tool song for a bit just because of the way it sounds.

Like was pointed out at HA, put Hooker with a Penis or Ticks & Leeches into a wave editor and look at what you see. I just don't think 10kd songs lend themselves to dynamic range. The loudest song, says RG, on 10kd is Vicarious, at -9.10dB. Now go pop in Salival. Third Eye has a track gain of -10.04dB. But you listen to both of those tracks back to back and tell me which has more dynamic range. It's gonna be Third Eye, because it has quiet passages and loud passages. Vicarious doesn't really do that. Which brings me to the point that I made somewhere along the line and I stand by---10,000 Days simply does not lend itself to dynamic range.

One of my favorite albums for dynamic range is The Fragile by NIN. I'm home for the holidays so I don't have it on me to check the RG values, but I'll DL some FLACs and see where it's at. However, The Fragile has fantastic dynamic range, it goes from extremely quiet to loud as hell (and probably clipping) instantly. And IIRC, the RG value for that album is pretty damn high, between -6 and -9. I'll get back to you on that. My point with this is that compression and limiting doesn't always mean that an album is going to have a lack of range.

If you want to go by RG value alone, 10,000 Days is compressed just the same as Ænima and Lateralus. The RG indicates the RMS of the tracks, and the numbers don't lie. Stinkfist is -8.65 and Rosetta Stoned is -8.45.

I've already mentioned this in the thread, but I will again because I believe it's important for even ME to keep remembering this: listen with your ears, because that's important. The only song that ever bugged me on 10,000 Days was WFM, and now that doesn't even bug me anymore because I've decided that the album was created the way they wanted it to be created, and that's that. It's not a "roll over and die" attitude, it's more like a "stop trying to get a moustache added onto the mona lisa" type attitude, at least in my mind.

I still check RG values when I think about CD production, but not as importantly as before. I just like to see whether an album is quieter or not. Jeez, the new Primus greatest hits (featuring remastered tunes) is INSANELY loud, like -10 something dB. Not all albums coming out these days are poorly mastered, check out the remaster/remix of Meshuggah - Nothing. Not only is it a solid sounding remix and remaster, but it comes in somewhere in the -8db range, which is actually quieter than the original release. Very respectable job done on that one.

I don't know if it has been said, but CD's do not clip. Digital audio clips, yes that is true, but CD's do not. You may overload the inputs of a speaker system, but that is not the same as digital clipping.

Oh, and compression is also not the same as clipping. Seems to me the original poster is going on the look of the waveform display and not his ears.

Roggles, The Patient and 10,000 Days have been recorded and produced differently, and that has an effect on what you're talking about. The Patient sounds flat compared to Vicarious because the guitars have been beefed up and plenty of mid range has been left in them, compared to the relatively mid-scooped Lateralus.

Vicarious has a more impressive sound because it's been produced and mastered to be louder, and you're right in this respect, but that's not the same as having plenty of dynamic range, because in Vicarious, the quiet sections arent that quiet and the louder sections aren't much louder than the quieter sections. In The Patient, it starts quite quietly, very softly, and then, when it gets loud, it really does get louder.

Personally, I prefer the way it's done in The Patient because, when it gets loud, it's much more uplifting because it truly does 'get loud', whereas in Vicarious, it's just loud all the time, the kick ins all sound very generic and, for me, don't have that much power.

Level 6 - Very Deep Thinker.

I'm more inclined to say 'SHOULD be THIS. SHOULD be THAT. COULD be BETTER'

You have no idea what you're talking about, but okay. CDs CAN clip--they clip when a signal attempts to surpass 0dBfs. A clipped signal has a square top, instead of being a parabola. You're talking about analog clipping, which is a great straw man, because yeah, you're right, it's definitely not the same as digital clipping!

Thanks for reading the first post, skipping everything, and passing judgement, you douchebag. I wrote this thread as I was working this entire thing out. So as you notice, later on I retracted the statement that 10,000 Days clips and even advocated the view that this album does not clip anywhere.

I think you are confusing tonal range with dynamic range. Tonal range has to do with the differences between highs and lows of notes, whereas dynamic range has to do with changes in volume. Because if you weren't confused, you would've never said something like that.

Vicarious starts off at medium volume, goes to loud, has a medium section, then goes to loud. That's it. The patient starts off quiet (very very quiet if you listen to it with EBA first), then goes to medium ("a groan") then goes to very loud (just as loud as Vicarious), then a quick very quiet section, back to very loud, and then ends at a medium quiet section.

BUT we aren't even talking about THAT. As I've said tons of times, 10,000 Days just does not lend itself to dynamic range when you say dynamics over the course of the song (loud parts, soft parts). What I'm talking about here is dynamic range as compared to compression. That lets the instruments "breathe" and the loud parts get loud. Perhaps the snare drum can quickly be a bit louder than the rest of the music, or the singer might suddenly get louder. I posted this earlier but here it is if you didn't see it.

BUT does that even matter? Take a well mastered track (you can even do The Patient if you like) that has a good amount of dynamic range. Something like a Pink Floyd CD would be good, or something by MFSL (or both!). Check out how it looks. Ah yes, not a block, you can actually see the peaks above the audio. Ok, now go into the limiting settings and aggressively limit the track, raise it several dB's and have it limit at -.1dBfs (the default setting is 6dB boost and -.1dBfs limit). Then throw those tracks into another player, Replaygain them (this is important) and then listen to them back to back, or even better, do an ABX. Can your ears even tell the difference between the aggressively limited file and the original well mastered file with range? I'm betting that most peoples' ears probably can't.

....and that's the problem. For most people it doesn't matter, and for many others, they don't even care. I was on Amazon and I saw a review for the 2006 EMI remaster of Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here. The review gushed about how this album was so much louder than before and how it had so much more bass and treble. Yikes! That's all most people care about, a loud album with lots of bass and treble. And for the minority who want to hear that range, who have a system that can be turned up to play it loud...we're left behind. Oh well.

PS. I still love the sound of 10,000 Days, and its new "guitar up front" approach. I still love Lateralus, though, that album has always sounded "unhuman" to me, like you're not even hearing guitar/drums/bass, but something similar to that, and it's quite an amazing sound...

It matters when it goes to extremes. Theoretically, almost all of the music we're listening to is "too loud". Look at some Pink Floyd albums, they are really close to 89dB (very small RG value) and they still have peaks at or near 100%, showing some interesting dynamic range (like the track "Stop" is the only track on The Wall that hits 100%...BUT it's a key exclamation point in the album). But it doesn't really matter...I think that albums like Ænima and Lateralus, while being in the -7dB range, are very well mastered and sound excellent.

But those are the "middle ground", so to speak. Yeah they're loud but they have great range. The problem comes when you have these really really loud albums and the dynamics are just totally choked out of them and they clip all over. A lot of times, it doesn't matter--these albums ARE loud, ARE compressed, but only the audiophiles are going to notice this. The problem, like I said, lies in extremes. Go pop in any of RHCP's recent albums, and you will notice blatant clipping all over the place. (I remember downloading Californication in FLAC and then encoding to OGG and I heard insane amounts of clipping...I thought I was crazy so I went back and was shocked to find that the original FLAC's were clipped like crazy!). Listen to Hypnotize by SOAD and hear the problems (someone actually made a post on HA posting a sample and asking if that awful sound was normal). For 99.99% of music listeners, having a loud album is not a big deal. But then there are just those albums that overextend the limits, and therein lies the problem. What I mean is, those are the albums that will make "normal" people stand up and ask what the hell is wrong with the album, kind of like people are doing with 10,000 Days. Of course, there are still PLENTY of people who've listened to Californication a million times and think it's the greatest sounding album of all time.

You shouldn't go through your life judging albums on ReplayGain values or by looking at their waveforms. You should listen to them and let your ears tell you how the music is. And when you can, support the artists and the albums that give you what you want to hear. I wish there was some direct way I could mail certain producers or technicians letters telling them how much they sucked or how much they kicked ass on the albums I listen to.

i dont think anyone can really say what 10,000 days SHOULD have sounded like. I enjoy it severely start to finish, i find plenty of sections to be quiet and dynamic. It is how it is because thats how TooL wants it. Great sound, great songs. I think they probably made this the way they wanted... well... i'd bet they wanted full surround sound and what not, but unfortunately the public isnt buying.

in all honesty, I listened to it with my ears and thought, "this is a rough mix. they've compressed the fuck out of it to compensate."
but I don't really give a shit. in a sense, it's more 'raw'.

Baressi hinted at a surround version in that one interview, hopefully they'll realize the demand and put it out, I would love to see a 5.1 DVD with visuals. We can always hope.

Uhh, yeah.

haha, you make me laugh. I can't even take you seriously. So basically, since none of us have an entire career of audio mastering like Bob Ludwig, we can't criticize his work? Hmm, what about the people who comment on sporting events, are they better than the players on the field? Most of the time they are either retired players who weren't very good or just guys who like sports. You don't have to be better than something to criticize it.

Here's another quote that Tool likes (liked?) to put everywhere: think for yourself, question authority.

your posts are a pain in the arse to read. i generally skim through them.