Songs on film vs songs on CD

[Fluff]

How come songs on film even compressed dvd's normally sound better than the same song played from a CD?

I find even songs in TV shows better than CD? Do the companies get better verisons? Or just EQ the CD differently?

[Brian Ellis]

I remember, in the days of steam radio, when the broadcast audio amplitude-modulated bandwidth was about 10 kHz, many people preferred to set their tone control to fully cut the little there was of everything above 5 kHz and be 6 dB down even at 2 kHz. Asked why, they would say that music sounded "mellow" or somesuch. When I pointed out that the violins sounded muted and the piccolo was hardly audible and showed them the difference with a flat response curve, they said it sounded harsh, even on good radio sets. Same with playing 78s, although it must be said that the noise of these was mainly in the trebles. Then came the LP with Decca's ffrr about 1949. At first everyone was critical, because they were not used to hearing the upper harmonics and said the 78s were better, even though they admitted the lower noise level was an improvement. Many years later, when the CD hit the market, it took a long time before the LP was dethroned, because the purity of the digital sound was lost, compared with the distortion of the analogue record. Similarly, the massive improvements of semiconductor amplifiers, compared with valve (vacuum tube) types, produced some recalcitrant reactionaries who believe that "valve" sound was so much better, mainly because the output transformer of the latter introduced distortion, limited frequency range and limited negative feedback (and there are still people with more money than sense who believe it, despite both scientific measurements and double-blind listening tests proving the contrary).

May I respectfully suggest that, assuming you have equally good amps and speakers, you think the CD is not as good as the comppressed sound because you are used to hearing the latter, whereas the CD is actually producing the better sound, although you do not recognise it as such? This is a very subjective issue.

[Fluff]

You could be right. I'm talking more about dynamic range compression than freqnency response.

Most commercial cd's are just recorded too loud. In movies you have to accomodate for explosions so the averge RMS is lower so maybe the studios get hold of the masters and compress differently? Which to my ears sound better / more punchy.

http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm

http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicdeath.htm

[Brian Ellis]

Hmmm! I was thinking more of classical orchestral music than pop music, to which your link refers. These are recorded with almost no compression because the fortissimi and pianissimi of a Brahms' concerto are as much a part of the music as the soloist hitting the right note. Even more so is a solo piece: I don't think any instrument (possible exception of a few organs) has a dynamic range greater than that of a CD, so compression is totally unnecessary. I believe that most pros in the classical music business adjust the amplitude so the peak fortissimi is recorded at -3 dB and the rest takes care of itself. The trickiest part is instrumental balance; if you have 20 or 30 mikes around and above a major orchestra, you don't want the numerous violins drowning out a gentle tap on the triangle. A good sound man aims to have the recording sound as nearly the same as if he were listening to the performance in the auditorium of a concert hall. This is not easy because of the acoustics and different distances to the individual performers. Of course, he plays his console with the orchestral score in front of him and he constantly adjusts the gain on each microphone channel according to the music. This ensures that the clarinettist turning a page of his score is not heard during a piano passage of the first harp. If he thinks that a piano passage is too low, he may jack up the gain an extra few dB. Of course, the final balance is done post-recording. Mastering the CD is done with little compression, if any (unlike analogue recordings, which were heavily compressed).

As for pop music, I know next to nothing about that, but it seems to me me that anything less than 130 dBA is frowned upon, to the detriment of the ears of the audience!

[Marshmallowman]

Songs on DVD can be in 5.1(or better), if done properly thats should provide a lot better sound experience. Try some music DVD's for comparision.

[Mehen]

How come songs on film even compressed dvd's normally sound better than the same song played from a CD?

I find even songs in TV shows better than CD? Do the companies get better verisons? Or just EQ the CD differently?

Might be psychological - mood of the movie, etc.

Or they just turn up the bass.

[paulw]

How come songs on film even compressed dvd's normally sound better than the same song played from a CD?

I find even songs in TV shows better than CD? Do the companies get better verisons? Or just EQ the CD differently?

Back in the days of roadshow movies I was an avid movie score collector and was nearly always disappointed with the LP version. Admittedly 6 track stereo in the theater was way better than the 2 channel stuff we had at home then. The problem was that the records were a re-recording of the score so short cuts were made mostly to fit on the 40 minutes of the LP, Only in the past 10 years have some of these scores been re-released on CD taken directly from the master music tapes used for the movies. "How The West Was Won" and "Ben Hur" the Rhino Records release is one of the best examples of this. Others have been technically disappointing due to the aging of mag tape.