Yoshi, someone a few weeks ago posted a very good article on a pianist perception of added reverb. Anyhow, there is a bigger fish to fry regarding your ORIGINAL-IMAGE BIT-PROCESSING – like in anything else it is not the subject of machines but the stupid people who use machines stupidly - here is my favorite topic!

Sure, the noise redaction is not good and your Naoya Hirabayashi does not say anything new. Still, the properly implemented noise redaction is perfectly fine. Do not ask me what constitutes “properly implemented noise redaction” – I do not know but I have seen when it was done well, with no negative impact. It means it is not the faulty concepts but just faulty implementation in 99.99% of all times. Sure, to run Cedar Audio Restoration or NoNoise programs does not requite a lot of brain or skills but the result is very pinpointingly bad. The people who do well sounding nose redaction employ more sophisticated tools and more sophisticated methods of result control.  I personally still prefer do not do DSP of any kind but if to embrace a task to reduce noise (with commercial mastering) then it should be done properly…

The same goes with ORIGINAL-IMAGE BIT-PROCESSING. When DG introduced it with their “Originals” series the “Image-Bit” sounded phenomenal however if you do today into the store and by DECCA’s ORIGINAL-IMAGE BIT processed CD then you will see that they are horrible garbage, even those that care the “Originals” logos. The difference is not in technology but in the people who use it. In 90s DG invited musicians and conductors in the mastering rooms an offer them to overview the possess of re-mastering. The mandatory participant of the mastering team during those years was a “tone-master” – a person who have musical and listening expertise and who navigated the Sound to where it should be. Presumably since the re-mastering nowadays is more like McDonalds job for those big companies the cultural elite is gone and in the place of people who know about sound they have nodays the Morons with diplomas of electricians. The CDs that they produce and the sound that they “shape” is a pure evidence of what is going on in their heads….

So, it is not mashies who are guilty but people…. Ironically I do not really blame those people… To do so is like to blame an alligator that he bite your leg off….

I know there are some people who would read the following and will consider that I am out of my mind but it is OK by me. I have no convincing explanations of the phenomena but I might testify that the phenomena does exist   - my Injection Channel does improve the subjective perception of dynamics and the compression with Injected Macondo bothers much less then without Injection.

It should not be a believable statement for others but others did not hear what the Injection Channel does in my room. If some of your find themselves in Boston then I can VERY EASY TO DEMONSTRATE how my Injection subjectively “decompress” Sound (to a degree of course).  I might go into further explanation why I feel it happens (I sincerely believe that the Injection, at least as it implemented in my room, acts as acoustic dithering) but since no one witness the effect it would not be necessary.

So, since no one I have seen ever made any claims or attempts to USE SUCCESSFULLY the acoustic dithering via Injection Channel I have no people to talk about it further. However, I think that the ludicrous fact that proper Injection “helps” against compression (at least it subjective perception) should be brought to the attention of the readers of my site…

jessie.dazzle wrote:

I have from time to time listened more with a very crude sort of injection channel plugged into the system. With this device, it is obvious that compressed recordings are more tollerable...My waf also noted the effect. I am only using one such device. In my case, I don't know if the "help" is due to some sort of dithering or if it is just plain masking.

Yes, this is THE effect, what driver do you use for injection?

jessie.dazzle wrote:

Also, compressed recordings sound almost good (considering it is only one speaker) when playing them only via this device, with no other channels in use.

Hmmmm, but it colored like hell…

jessie.dazzle wrote:

Another thing that seems to make compressed recordings more tollerable: The other day I tried letting the 180Hz lower-mid horn do more and the 400Hz upper-mid horn do less, by moving the crossover points up.

Sure, it is how all horns work. You moved the MF horn further from the “horn boom”, further from the channel’s own EQ zone.

http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=4533

This is where the art of the building systems with horns kinks in as it is necessary to find where is the save balance between a desire to get more LF EQes from a horn but without picking the dynamic-compressing lower knee “horn choking”. When you play with “horn choking” you will see that 25Hz is matter…  It is the area where 80% of all horn makers demonstrate complete lack of senses. BTW, in some case some minor LF “horn boom” is acceptable if the lower channel provides a minor effect of… injection.  It all depends from many many many factors….

I have to admit that I was experimenting last night with Pacific’s Low Level Extension and it was not bad at all. It would not be my last words as I would need the whole system up and running to see what is going on – the region where the Low Level Extension it operates is VERY demanding. However my initial feelings were very positive. The Low Level Extension is not EQ but a dynamic-range-sensitive EQ – quite brilliant idea – through I do not know yet how it will sound at full bloom. The classical CD of References Recordings are a good illustration how it works….Anyhow, it is very exiting feature to play with… though I do admit that it is a forum of a compression….

From Pacific Microsonics Operating Manual: (disregard the text mentioning HDCD – I do not use HDCD encoding neither A/D nor in D/A)

Low Level Extension

Low Level Extension is an average signal level based low level compression / expansion system used on HDCD 16-bit amplitude encoded recordings which very gradually raises gain a preset amount when the average signal level drops below a preset threshold. During HDCD 16-bit decoded playback the compression curve is expanded back to linear gain by the HDCD decoder using a precisely mapped inverse of the compression curve controlled by a hidden code, producing a dynamic range and resolution floor beyond 16-bit. During undecoded playback low level information normally lost by standard 16-bit players is preserved, providing more accurate timbral and spatial reproduction.

There are two modes of Low Level Extension, “Normal” and “Special”. Normal mode begins to affect the input signal 45 dB below peak level, gradually raising the gain 4 dB as the level drops over an 18 dB range. Special mode begins to affect the input signal 39 dB below peak level, and gradually raises the gain 7.5 dB over a 26 dB range. Normal mode is optimized to provide the best combination of decoded dynamic range and resolution and nundecoded compatibility. Special mode is designed to provide the best possible decoded dynamic range and resolution at some potential expense of undecoded compatibility. Typically, Special mode is used only for HDCD 16-bit master tracking with the assumption that the recording will be decoded to a 24-bit or 20-bit word length for digital post production before being re-encoded to HDCD 16-bit using Normal mode to produce a release master.

Wide Dynamic Range Jazz or Classical

This type of material typically has infrequent, short duration peaks such as snare drum rim shots, cymbal crashes, bass drum hits, etc. These types of short duration peaks can be limited by as much as 5 dB or 6 dB using Peak Extension with little audible effect during undecoded playback, allowing the average recorded level to be raised which improves overall resolution and fidelity.

Low Level Extension, set to Normal mode, should almost always be used with wide dynamic range material as it greatly aids in preserving the low level ambient and timbral information that gives “life” and naturalness to recordings.

With certain types of source material, such as a very low level passage in a noisy analog tape, Low Level Extension may occasionally cause an audible shift or “breathing” of the noise floor during undecoded playback. Low Level Extension can be turned off “on the fly” prior to such passages when the signal level is above - 30 dBfs, and turned back on afterwards, again when the signal level is above - 30 dBfs, to preserve the best possible fidelity for the remainder of the recording. However, with source material that is very noisy, Low Level Extension should be left off, as the noise of the source will set the resolution floor.

A very good article on the subject that basically proves my attitude on the subject: it is not about technology but the idiocy of people who use the technology.

http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/ClippingOnCD/clipping.html

Romy the Cat wrote:

A very good article on the subject that basically proves my attitude on the subject: it is not about technology but the idiocy of people who use the technology. http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/HFN/ClippingOnCD/clipping.html The Cat

Turn Me Up!™ is a non-profit music industry organization campaigning to give artists back the choice to release more dynamic records. To be clear, it's not our goal to discourage loud records; they are, of course, a valid choice for many artists. We simply want to make the choice for a more dynamic record an option for artists.
Today, artists generally feel they have to master their records to be as loud as everybody else's. This certainly works for many artists. However, there are many other artists who feel their music would be better served by a more dynamic record, but who don't feel like that option is available to them.

This all comes down to the moment a consumer hears a record, and the fear that if the record is more dynamic, the consumer won't know to just turn up the volume. This is an understandable concern, and one Turn Me Up! is working to resolve.

http://www.turnmeup.org/

Romy the Cat wrote:

Turn Me Up!™ is a non-profit music industry organization campaigning to give artists back the choice to release more dynamic records. To be clear, it's not our goal to discourage loud records; they are, of course, a valid choice for many artists. We simply want to make the choice for a more dynamic record an option for artists. Today, artists generally feel they have to master their records to be as loud as everybody else's. This certainly works for many artists. However, there are many other artists who feel their music would be better served by a more dynamic record, but who don't feel like that option is available to them. This all comes down to the moment a consumer hears a record, and the fear that if the record is more dynamic, the consumer won't know to just turn up the volume. This is an understandable concern, and one Turn Me Up! is working to resolve. http://www.turnmeup.org/ The CaT

there are many other artists who feel their music would be better served by a more dynamic record

Paul S wrote:

The fact is, all orchestral processing/recording/broadcasting involves some sort of "compression", so it's really just a matter of how it's done.

Let do not forget that acoustic space also have own compression… not to mention that the performing intend itself has own “compression”.

Anyhow, I kind of view noondays the whole subject of compression slightly different then I use to do it before. I agree that various type of compressions rule playback but my interest is what type of compressions they are and HOW the compression applied. To a degree a properly made compressions might be in fact a beneficial tool. Someone before proposed it but I discarded it – now I feel that the idea of full-of-sense compressions had own merit.

The most interesting aspect to me in whole idea of compression is not the compression itself – we people who sit in the end sound chain have very little control over it. What interests me is hot to organize playback DIFFERENTLY in order to make the playback to sound the most properly with this or that type of compression. The compression itself is like an input parameter of some kind of function and the playback shall react to compression and to be able to deal with it…

Romy the Cat wrote:

Let do not forget that acoustic space also have own compression… not to mention that the performing intend itself has own “compression”.

Anyhow, I kind of view noondays the whole subject of compression slightly different then I use to do it before. I agree that various type of compressions rule playback but my interest is what type of compressions they are and HOW the compression applied. To a degree a properly made compressions might be in fact a beneficial tool. Someone before proposed it but I discarded it – now I feel that the idea of full-of-sense compressions had own merit.

The most interesting aspect to me in whole idea of compression is not the compression itself – we people who sit in the end sound chain have very little control over it. What interests me is hot to organize playback DIFFERENTLY in order to make the playback to sound the most properly with this or that type of compression. The compression itself is like an input parameter of some kind of function and the playback shall react to compression and to be able to deal with it…