[UC]

Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!

Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!

Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.

[H Davis]

"UC" wrote in message
...
Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!

Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!

Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.

I have done better "remastering" jobs than some CDs show just by using my
31-band graphic equalizer and tone controls.
The term "remastering" seems to have little meaning, and no matter what is
done, if you are starting with a recording on tape or LP, little can be done
for such defects as noise and limiting/distortion caused by tape saturation.

[Serge Auckland[_3_]]

"UC" wrote in message
...
Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!

Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!

Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.

I've also had the experience that remasters are often worse than the
original. I now won't buy any CD that's been mastered after 1995 without
listening to it first, as before then, CDs had dynamic range and weren't EQd
to hell and back, whereas after 1995, with the advent of tools such as the
Finalizer, and/or the (mis) use of broadcast tools like the Omnia and Orban
processors for mastering, CD quality degraded sharply.

S.

[Steven Sullivan]

UC wrote:
Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!

Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!

Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.

They didn't use master tapes EQ'd for LP. Nor would one need to apply
the RIAA EQ if they did. RIAA EQ is applied automatically during cutting
and 'reversed' during playback of LP. A master tape 'EQ'd for LP' -- a
'production master' -- does not refer to the RIAA EQ, it refers to any
mastering moves applied manually, not automatically, at the cutting stage
by the cutting/mastering engineer after the original master tape has been made,
to accomodate various limitations of LP. RIAA EQ is applied automatically
'on top of' that.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[UC]

On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
UC wrote:
Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!
Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!
Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.

They didn't use master tapes EQ'd for LP. Nor would one need to apply
the RIAA EQ if they did. RIAA EQ is applied automatically during cutting
and 'reversed' during playback of LP. A master tape 'EQ'd for LP' -- a
'production master' -- does not refer to the RIAA EQ, it refers to any
mastering moves applied manually, not automatically, at the cutting stage
by the cutting/mastering engineer after the original master tape has been made,
to accomodate various limitations of LP. RIAA EQ is applied automatically
'on top of' that.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Then how do you explain the near-universal overly bright bass-shy
remasters?

[Serge Auckland[_3_]]

"UC" wrote in message
...
On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
UC wrote:
Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!
Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!
Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.

They didn't use master tapes EQ'd for LP. Nor would one need to apply
the RIAA EQ if they did. RIAA EQ is applied automatically during cutting
and 'reversed' during playback of LP. A master tape 'EQ'd for LP' -- a
'production master' -- does not refer to the RIAA EQ, it refers to any
mastering moves applied manually, not automatically, at the cutting stage
by the cutting/mastering engineer after the original master tape has been
made,
to accomodate various limitations of LP. RIAA EQ is applied
automatically
'on top of' that.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Then how do you explain the near-universal overly bright bass-shy
remasters?

Very poor quality mastering. If RIAA EQ had really been misapplied, the
extreme top would be some 40dB above the extreme bass, and I don't think any
modern CD is quite that bad. What I've heard seems to apply a sort of
"smiley" EQ curve, boom and tizz in effect.

S.

[Walt]

UC wrote:
On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
UC wrote:
Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!
Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!
Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.

They didn't use master tapes EQ'd for LP.


Then how do you explain the near-universal overly bright bass-shy
remasters?

Artistic decision on the part of the mastering engineer and / or
producers. There's a thin line among "bright", "shrill", "crisp",
"harsh", "detailed" etc. Just as there's a thin line among "warm",
"muddy", "full", "unfocused", "dull" etc.

The thing is, most people when presented with a choice, pick the louder
one, the brighter one, or (in the case of food) the one with more sugar.
This "pressure" creates loud (achieved with compression) shrill
records and overly-sweet food.

So, imagine if you will the invisible hand of the marketplace turning up
the high frequencies on the EQ. It's Mr. Smith's fault.

//Walt

[[email protected]]

UC wrote:
On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
UC wrote:
Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!
Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!
Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.
They didn't use master tapes EQ'd for LP. Nor would one need to apply
the RIAA EQ if they did. RIAA EQ is applied automatically during cutting
and 'reversed' during playback of LP. A master tape 'EQ'd for LP' -- a
'production master' -- does not refer to the RIAA EQ, it refers to any
mastering moves applied manually, not automatically, at the cutting stage
by the cutting/mastering engineer after the original master tape has been made,
to accomodate various limitations of LP. RIAA EQ is applied automatically
'on top of' that.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Then how do you explain the near-universal overly bright bass-shy
remasters?

"Near-universal" is a *vast* overstatement IME. With a few exceptions,
all of the remasters I've purchased have had significantly better
dynamics than the originals (mostly all early '90s vintage), and if
anything were less bright and forward sounding. I probably only have
about 50 or so remasters (for which I have the original CD release) so
that's not a huge sample size, but clearly if the problem was endemic,
as you claim, I would have to have found many more than I have.

Most of the recordings that I've replaced were apparently not optimized
for CD originally (like most in the early 90's IME) in the rush to
release them to market, with some even being clearly inferior to my LP
copies at the time. All of the remastered CD's I've purchased, however,
are significantly better (IMO of course) to their LP counterparts.

Keith Hughes

[Ian Bell[_2_]]

UC wrote:
On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
UC wrote:
Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!
Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!
Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.
They didn't use master tapes EQ'd for LP. Nor would one need to apply
the RIAA EQ if they did. RIAA EQ is applied automatically during cutting
and 'reversed' during playback of LP. A master tape 'EQ'd for LP' -- a
'production master' -- does not refer to the RIAA EQ, it refers to any
mastering moves applied manually, not automatically, at the cutting stage
by the cutting/mastering engineer after the original master tape has been made,
to accomodate various limitations of LP. RIAA EQ is applied automatically
'on top of' that.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Then how do you explain the near-universal overly bright bass-shy
remasters?


Too much bass and no top on your vinyl set up? The original Beatles
vinyl had very little bass because of the strict cutting regime at EMI
at the time. Paul was always complaining they never had as much bass as
American records he had. They were mixed knowing the limitations of the
cutting set up. After all, mix engineers always were previously cutting
engineers at EMI.

Cheers

Ian

Cheers

Ian

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 7 Oct 2009 13:11:15 -0700, wrote
(in article ):

UC wrote:
On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
UC wrote:
Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!
Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!
Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.
They didn't use master tapes EQ'd for LP. Nor would one need to apply
the RIAA EQ if they did. RIAA EQ is applied automatically during cutting
and 'reversed' during playback of LP. A master tape 'EQ'd for LP' -- a
'production master' -- does not refer to the RIAA EQ, it refers to any
mastering moves applied manually, not automatically, at the cutting stage
by the cutting/mastering engineer after the original master tape has been
made,
to accomodate various limitations of LP. RIAA EQ is applied automatically
'on top of' that.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Then how do you explain the near-universal overly bright bass-shy
remasters?

"Near-universal" is a *vast* overstatement IME. With a few exceptions,
all of the remasters I've purchased have had significantly better
dynamics than the originals (mostly all early '90s vintage), and if
anything were less bright and forward sounding. I probably only have
about 50 or so remasters (for which I have the original CD release) so
that's not a huge sample size, but clearly if the problem was endemic,
as you claim, I would have to have found many more than I have.

Most of the recordings that I've replaced were apparently not optimized
for CD originally (like most in the early 90's IME) in the rush to
release them to market, with some even being clearly inferior to my LP
copies at the time. All of the remastered CD's I've purchased, however,
are significantly better (IMO of course) to their LP counterparts.

Keith Hughes

I don't "do" so-called "popular" music, and cannot speak to CD reissues of
Beatles, Stones, etc., but much of my CD/SACD collection and not a few of my
LP collection are remastered reissues of material from the 1950's and 1960's.
This is because I'd rather have an older recording by a great conductor, than
the mediocre performance and perhaps "up-to-date sound" of a newer recording
with today's conductors, most of whom (IMHO) simply wouldn't make a pimple on
the arses of the likes of Bruno Walter, Fritz Reiner, Adrian Bolt, Eugene
Ormandy, etc.

What I have found is that most classical reissues sound much better than the
originals. I have a bunch of JVC "XRCD" remasters of RCA Red Seals recorded
in the mid-fifties to the mid sixties and I am astounded by how good they
sound. In many cases they sound much better than the original LPs (not to
mention that they sound much better than many recent recordings of the same
works made with the latest recording technologies). Same is true of many of
BMG's SACD reissues of these Red Seal titles. I also have many JVC XRCDs of
jazz titles by the likes of Coleman Hawkins, Bill Evans, Miles Davis, etc.,
most recorded by the legendary Rudy Van Gelder. These titles sound better
than the original records too. I also have some 180 and 200 gram vinyl
reissues of some of these jazz artists on Impulse, and these sound much
better than the originals. (I also have a couple of single sided, 200 gram,
45-rpm remasters of both RCA Red Seals and Mercury Living Presence recordings
that sound so much better than either the original vinyl pressings OR the CD
remasters that it is almost difficult to believe that they came from the same
master tapes of the same performances!).

So, maybe it's SOP for pop stuff to get ruined by the remastering process but
in the classical, film score and jazz reissue world, this is definitely NOT
generally the case.

[allen]

On 7 Oct 2009 13:27:55 GMT, UC wrote:

On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
UC wrote:
Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!
Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!
Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.

They didn't use master tapes EQ'd for LP. Nor would one need to apply
the RIAA EQ if they did. RIAA EQ is applied automatically during cutting
and 'reversed' during playback of LP. A master tape 'EQ'd for LP' -- a
'production master' -- does not refer to the RIAA EQ, it refers to any
mastering moves applied manually, not automatically, at the cutting stage
by the cutting/mastering engineer after the original master tape has been made,
to accomodate various limitations of LP. RIAA EQ is applied automatically
'on top of' that.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Then how do you explain the near-universal overly bright bass-shy
remasters?

Perhaps your opinion has been coloured previously by

a) Exceptionally bright and hard-clipped loud remasters or
b) Original transfers sourced from x-generation analogue copy masters,
which are not going to sound bright

IMO, neither of the above apply to the new Beatles remasters, which
are of exceptional [quality] clarity, avoid hard-clipping and
certainly are not bass-shy.

[Edmund[_2_]]

schreef in bericht
...
UC wrote:
On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
UC wrote:
Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!
Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!
Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.
They didn't use master tapes EQ'd for LP. Nor would one need to apply
the RIAA EQ if they did. RIAA EQ is applied automatically during cutting
and 'reversed' during playback of LP. A master tape 'EQ'd for LP' -- a
'production master' -- does not refer to the RIAA EQ, it refers to any
mastering moves applied manually, not automatically, at the cutting
stage
by the cutting/mastering engineer after the original master tape has
been made,
to accomodate various limitations of LP. RIAA EQ is applied
automatically
'on top of' that.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Then how do you explain the near-universal overly bright bass-shy
remasters?

"Near-universal" is a *vast* overstatement IME. With a few exceptions,
all of the remasters I've purchased have had significantly better dynamics
than the originals (mostly all early '90s vintage), and if anything were
less bright and forward sounding. I probably only have about 50 or so
remasters (for which I have the original CD release) so that's not a huge
sample size, but clearly if the problem was endemic, as you claim, I would
have to have found many more than I have.

Most of the recordings that I've replaced were apparently not optimized
for CD originally (like most in the early 90's IME) in the rush to release
them to market, with some even being clearly inferior to my LP copies at
the time. All of the remastered CD's I've purchased, however, are
significantly better (IMO of course) to their LP counterparts.

I wonder what that "optimized for CD " means. IMHO there should be
NO EQ in the studio at all.
I don't mean the RIAA because that curve will be exactly corrected
with the playback equipment.
What peaople should do in the studio is adjusting the volume from
each mic and leave it to that.


Keith Hughes

Edmund

[Andrew Barss[_2_]]

UC wrote:
: Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
: WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
: it's HORRID!

: Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!


That's 180 degrees off everything I've read (20+ detailed reviews) of the
new Beatles remasters. Are you sure there isn't something wrong with your
system?

Here's a representative discussion, with a lot of discussion of the 1987
cs. 2009 versions of Sg. Pepper:


http://www.tonepublications.com/musi...ereo-and-mono/

-- Andy Barss

[Arny Krueger]

"Edmund" wrote in message


I wonder what that "optimized for CD " means. IMHO there
should be NO EQ in the studio at all.

There is always eq in the studio - the non-flat frequency response of the
mics and the effects of room acoustics.

What people should do in the studio is adjusting the
volume from each mic and leave it to that.

If wishes were fishes...

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 8 Oct 2009 05:34:32 -0700, Edmund wrote
(in article ):

schreef in bericht
...
UC wrote:
On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
UC wrote:
Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!
Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!
Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.
They didn't use master tapes EQ'd for LP. Nor would one need to apply
the RIAA EQ if they did. RIAA EQ is applied automatically during cutting
and 'reversed' during playback of LP. A master tape 'EQ'd for LP' -- a
'production master' -- does not refer to the RIAA EQ, it refers to any
mastering moves applied manually, not automatically, at the cutting
stage
by the cutting/mastering engineer after the original master tape has
been made,
to accomodate various limitations of LP. RIAA EQ is applied
automatically
'on top of' that.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Then how do you explain the near-universal overly bright bass-shy
remasters?

"Near-universal" is a *vast* overstatement IME. With a few exceptions,
all of the remasters I've purchased have had significantly better dynamics
than the originals (mostly all early '90s vintage), and if anything were
less bright and forward sounding. I probably only have about 50 or so
remasters (for which I have the original CD release) so that's not a huge
sample size, but clearly if the problem was endemic, as you claim, I would
have to have found many more than I have.

Most of the recordings that I've replaced were apparently not optimized
for CD originally (like most in the early 90's IME) in the rush to release
them to market, with some even being clearly inferior to my LP copies at
the time. All of the remastered CD's I've purchased, however, are
significantly better (IMO of course) to their LP counterparts.

I wonder what that "optimized for CD " means. IMHO there should be
NO EQ in the studio at all.
I don't mean the RIAA because that curve will be exactly corrected
with the playback equipment.
What peaople should do in the studio is adjusting the volume from
each mic and leave it to that.


Keith Hughes

Edmund

It could mean most anything. I do know, however, that there are
computer-based autocorrelation schemes (to remove tape hiss, ostensibly,
without affecting the program material) and drop-out compensation algorithms
which likewise are, essentially, transparent to the listener which are fairly
universally applied to reissued material from analog masters. Whether or not
they use these schemes in the remastering of "pop" material, I couldn't say,
but such techniques could certainly be termed as "optimizing" the material
for CD.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
UC wrote:

Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!

Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!

Mmmm...I very much disagree. I think that these are easily the best
sounding CD Beatles releases.

[UC]

On Oct 7, 11:19 pm, allen wrote:
On 7 Oct 2009 13:27:55 GMT, UC wrote:



On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
UC wrote:
Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!
Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!
Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.

They didn't use master tapes EQ'd for LP. Nor would one need to apply
the RIAA EQ if they did. RIAA EQ is applied automatically during cutting
and 'reversed' during playback of LP. A master tape 'EQ'd for LP' -- a
'production master' -- does not refer to the RIAA EQ, it refers to any
mastering moves applied manually, not automatically, at the cutting stage
by the cutting/mastering engineer after the original master tape has been made,
to accomodate various limitations of LP. RIAA EQ is applied automatically
'on top of' that.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Then how do you explain the near-universal overly bright bass-shy
remasters?

Perhaps your opinion has been coloured previously by

a) Exceptionally bright and hard-clipped loud remasters or
b) Original transfers sourced from x-generation analogue copy masters,
which are not going to sound bright

IMO, neither of the above apply to the new Beatles remasters, which
are of exceptional [quality] clarity, avoid hard-clipping and
certainly are not bass-shy.

I have several CD releases/remasters of material that I owned on LP.
These include Ian Matthews (Hit and Run/Go for Broke), Genesis (Trick
of the Tail), Dire Straights (Dire Straights, Love Over Gold), Moody
Blues (Days of Future Passed) Beatles (Sgt Pepper).

I owned Dire Straights on domestic and Japanese vinyl, Beatles on
British and Dutch vinyl, Genesis on British vinyl, and Ian Mathews on
domestic Columbia vinyl, and Moody Blues on both domestic and British
vinyl. My LP setup over the years employed several cartridges (Ortofon
MC20/MCA-76, Dynavector Ruby, Stax CPY-2 or whatever t was called) in
a Magnepan arm and Thorens TD125 Mk II table. I had Rogers Studio 1
speakers which I recently replaced with Yamaha NS-1000. The system was
not overly bright at any time. My CD player is a Sony CDP-508ESD (I
own 2 of them). I use Monster cables. Power amp is Denon POA-1500 Mk
II.

The Moody Blues and Dire Straights remasters are superior to the
original CD releases. All the others are far worse. The Ian Matthews
was never released on domestically by Columbia on CD. It was released
by BGO out of Britain. The Moody Blues and Dire Straights CDs are
very good. All the rest are harsh, bright, piercing and tonally
unbalanced. I am fed up!

[glenbadd]

On Oct 8, 11:34=A0pm, "Edmund" wrote:

=A0I wonder what that "optimized for CD " means. IMHO there should be
NO EQ in the studio at all.
I don't mean the RIAA because that curve will be exactly corrected
with the playback equipment.
What peaople should do in the studio is adjusting the volume from
each mic and leave it to that.

You haven't been in a studio!

An optimization required for CD is that none of the peaks exceed the
range of the ADC. Good CDs will never reach the magic 0dB.
Unfortunately I have many popular CDs that are mastered such that
there cann be hundreds of 0dB peaks (with square tops on the
waveforms) on every track, as highlighted in red by loading ripped WAV
tracks into Audacity. The dreaded Loudness Wars!

G.

[[email protected]]

UC wrote:
On Oct 7, 11:19 pm, allen wrote:
On 7 Oct 2009 13:27:55 GMT, UC wrote:



On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
UC wrote:
Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!
Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!
Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.
They didn't use master tapes EQ'd for LP. Nor would one need to apply
the RIAA EQ if they did. RIAA EQ is applied automatically during cutting
and 'reversed' during playback of LP. A master tape 'EQ'd for LP' -- a
'production master' -- does not refer to the RIAA EQ, it refers to any
mastering moves applied manually, not automatically, at the cutting stage
by the cutting/mastering engineer after the original master tape has been made,
to accomodate various limitations of LP. RIAA EQ is applied automatically
'on top of' that.
--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine
Then how do you explain the near-universal overly bright bass-shy
remasters?
Perhaps your opinion has been coloured previously by

a) Exceptionally bright and hard-clipped loud remasters or
b) Original transfers sourced from x-generation analogue copy masters,
which are not going to sound bright

IMO, neither of the above apply to the new Beatles remasters, which
are of exceptional [quality] clarity, avoid hard-clipping and
certainly are not bass-shy.

I have several CD releases/remasters of material that I owned on LP.
These include Ian Matthews (Hit and Run/Go for Broke), Genesis (Trick
of the Tail), Dire Straights (Dire Straights, Love Over Gold), Moody
Blues (Days of Future Passed) Beatles (Sgt Pepper).

I owned Dire Straights on domestic and Japanese vinyl, Beatles on
British and Dutch vinyl, Genesis on British vinyl, and Ian Mathews on
domestic Columbia vinyl, and Moody Blues on both domestic and British
vinyl. My LP setup over the years employed several cartridges (Ortofon
MC20/MCA-76, Dynavector Ruby, Stax CPY-2 or whatever t was called) in
a Magnepan arm and Thorens TD125 Mk II table. I had Rogers Studio 1
speakers which I recently replaced with Yamaha NS-1000. The system was
not overly bright at any time. My CD player is a Sony CDP-508ESD (I
own 2 of them). I use Monster cables. Power amp is Denon POA-1500 Mk
II.

The Moody Blues and Dire Straights remasters are superior to the
original CD releases. All the others are far worse. The Ian Matthews
was never released on domestically by Columbia on CD. It was released
by BGO out of Britain. The Moody Blues and Dire Straights CDs are
very good. All the rest are harsh, bright, piercing and tonally
unbalanced. I am fed up!

Well, clearly your experience differs from mine. As for Genesis, I had
British LPs of Trick of The Tail, Winds and Wuthering, and Selling
England By The Pound. Without exception, the British LP versions were
superior to the first release CD's. Also without exception, the CD
remasters are far superior to the British LP's. YMMV of course, but
that's the point.

Keith Hughes

[Edmund[_2_]]

"glenbadd" schreef in bericht
...
On Oct 8, 11:34=A0pm, "Edmund" wrote:


An optimization required for CD is that none of the peaks exceed the
range of the ADC. Good CDs will never reach the magic 0dB.
Unfortunately I have many popular CDs that are mastered such that
there cann be hundreds of 0dB peaks (with square tops on the
waveforms) on every track, as highlighted in red by loading ripped WAV
tracks into Audacity. The dreaded Loudness Wars!

G.
Are you sure? That seems extremely odd to me since avoiding clipping
is a very basic requirement for digital recording.
I am not familiar with Audacity but I happen to know that at least some
programs show a wave as a straight line between the samples instead of
rebuilding the proper wave form. Therefore it may look like a square
wave or top but in reality it isn't.
Do you have a title of such a CD for me?

Edmund

[Rob Tweed]

On 9 Oct 2009 00:45:05 GMT, UC wrote:

My CD player is a Sony CDP-508ESD (I
own 2 of them). I use Monster cables. Power amp is Denon POA-1500 Mk
II.

There's the answer - the cables ;-)


---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com

[UC]

On Oct 9, 7:55 am, wrote:
UC wrote:
On Oct 7, 11:19 pm, allen wrote:

[ Excess quoting snipped. -- dsr ]


I have several CD releases/remasters of material that I owned on LP.
These include Ian Matthews (Hit and Run/Go for Broke), Genesis (Trick
of the Tail), Dire Straights (Dire Straights, Love Over Gold), Moody
Blues (Days of Future Passed) Beatles (Sgt Pepper).

I owned Dire Straights on domestic and Japanese vinyl, Beatles on
British and Dutch vinyl, Genesis on British vinyl, and Ian Mathews on
domestic Columbia vinyl, and Moody Blues on both domestic and British
vinyl. My LP setup over the years employed several cartridges (Ortofon
MC20/MCA-76, Dynavector Ruby, Stax CPY-2 or whatever t was called) in
a Magnepan arm and Thorens TD125 Mk II table. I had Rogers Studio 1
speakers which I recently replaced with Yamaha NS-1000. The system was
not overly bright at any time. My CD player is a Sony CDP-508ESD (I
own 2 of them). I use Monster cables. Power amp is Denon POA-1500 Mk
II.

The Moody Blues and Dire Straights remasters are superior to the
original CD releases. All the others are far worse. The Ian Matthews
was never released on domestically by Columbia on CD. It was released
by BGO out of Britain. The Moody Blues and Dire Straights CDs are
very good. All the rest are harsh, bright, piercing and tonally
unbalanced. I am fed up!

Well, clearly your experience differs from mine. As for Genesis, I had
British LPs of Trick of The Tail, Winds and Wuthering, and Selling
England By The Pound. Without exception, the British LP versions were
superior to the first release CD's. Also without exception, the CD
remasters are far superior to the British LP's. YMMV of course, but
that's the point.

Keith Hughes

No, the remaster of Trick of the tail, at least, is nothing remotely
like the British Charisma LP. Way too bright, too much sibilance, etc.
The original Charisma CD is excellent, very similar to the LP.

[[email protected]]

On 8 Oct 2009 22:26:51 GMT, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
UC wrote:

Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!

Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!

Mmmm...I very much disagree. I think that these are easily the best
sounding CD Beatles releases.

ditto. Same with the Stones remasters of several years ago.

[Arny Krueger]

"Edmund" wrote in message

"glenbadd" schreef in bericht
...
On Oct 8, 11:34=A0pm, "Edmund"
wrote:


An optimization required for CD is that none of the
peaks exceed the range of the ADC. Good CDs will never
reach the magic 0dB. Unfortunately I have many popular
CDs that are mastered such that there cann be hundreds
of 0dB peaks (with square tops on the waveforms) on
every track, as highlighted in red by loading ripped WAV
tracks into Audacity. The dreaded Loudness Wars!

G.
Are you sure? That seems extremely odd to me since
avoiding clipping is a very basic requirement for digital
recording.

People engaged in the "loudness wars" have been flouting the usual
prohibitions against clipping for at least a decade.

I am not familiar with Audacity but I happen to know that
at least some programs show a wave as a straight line
between the samples instead of rebuilding the proper wave
form.

If Audacity or Audition, or CoolEdit Pro show clipping, there was no doubt
clipping.

Therefore it may look like a square wave or top but
in reality it isn't.

If there are a row of samples right up against or parallel to FS, it is some
kind of clipping.

Do you have a title of such a CD for me?

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

Amy Grant - Heart In Motion (A&M 75021 5321 2)

"Alas, in the highly competitive pop music world, something had to give; who
was first to do it may be lost to history, but by this time, the trend
towards the reduction of the CD's quality and dynamic range had already
begun. In this particular case, not only do many songs on the CD reach
maximum peak level, a number of these peaks in each song are also
"clipped" -- an instance where the top and/or bottom of the waveform has
been "flat-topped" or "hacked off" because it ran into the brick wall known
as the 100% / 0 dB limit.
This is evident by looking at the waveform graph of Track 3:
"

This is BTW the third "hit" in a google search that took me about 10 seconds
to do. If I was serious about doing my homework... ;-)

[Steven Sullivan]

Serge Auckland wrote:
"UC" wrote in message
...
On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
UC wrote:
Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!
Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!
Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.

They didn't use master tapes EQ'd for LP. Nor would one need to apply
the RIAA EQ if they did. RIAA EQ is applied automatically during cutting
and 'reversed' during playback of LP. A master tape 'EQ'd for LP' -- a
'production master' -- does not refer to the RIAA EQ, it refers to any
mastering moves applied manually, not automatically, at the cutting stage
by the cutting/mastering engineer after the original master tape has been
made,
to accomodate various limitations of LP. RIAA EQ is applied
automatically
'on top of' that.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Then how do you explain the near-universal overly bright bass-shy
remasters?

Very poor quality mastering. If RIAA EQ had really been misapplied, the
extreme top would be some 40dB above the extreme bass, and I don't think any
modern CD is quite that bad. What I've heard seems to apply a sort of
"smiley" EQ curve, boom and tizz in effect.

Smiley EQ mean accented bass and treble, uranium man reports 'near universal'
LACK of bass coupled with high frequency boost (which isn't my experience,
btw, though smiley EQ seems common enough).


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Steven Sullivan]

wrote:
UC wrote:
On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:
UC wrote:
Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!
Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!
Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.
They didn't use master tapes EQ'd for LP. Nor would one need to apply
the RIAA EQ if they did. RIAA EQ is applied automatically during cutting
and 'reversed' during playback of LP. A master tape 'EQ'd for LP' -- a
'production master' -- does not refer to the RIAA EQ, it refers to any
mastering moves applied manually, not automatically, at the cutting stage
by the cutting/mastering engineer after the original master tape has been made,
to accomodate various limitations of LP. RIAA EQ is applied automatically
'on top of' that.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Then how do you explain the near-universal overly bright bass-shy
remasters?

"Near-universal" is a *vast* overstatement IME. With a few exceptions,
all of the remasters I've purchased have had significantly better
dynamics than the originals (mostly all early '90s vintage), and if
anything were less bright and forward sounding. I probably only have
about 50 or so remasters (for which I have the original CD release) so
that's not a huge sample size, but clearly if the problem was endemic,
as you claim, I would have to have found many more than I have.

Most of the recordings that I've replaced were apparently not optimized
for CD originally (like most in the early 90's IME) in the rush to
release them to market, with some even being clearly inferior to my LP
copies at the time. All of the remastered CD's I've purchased, however,
are significantly better (IMO of course) to their LP counterparts.

Actually the early 90s might be the golden age, as it was in the midst of
the *FIRST* wave of remasters, where MEs were going back to original
master tapes rather than LP production masters,
but not yet overdoing compression (noise reduction was still
applied too aggressively sometimes though).

Remasters since 1995 or so have often has *less* dynamic range than those, IME.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[[email protected]]

UC wrote:
On Oct 9, 7:55 am, wrote:
UC wrote:
On Oct 7, 11:19 pm, allen wrote:


snip

Well, clearly your experience differs from mine. As for Genesis, I had
British LPs of Trick of The Tail, Winds and Wuthering, and Selling
England By The Pound. Without exception, the British LP versions were
superior to the first release CD's. Also without exception, the CD
remasters are far superior to the British LP's. YMMV of course, but
that's the point.

Keith Hughes

No,

In your opinion...

the remaster of Trick of the tail, at least, is nothing remotely
like the British Charisma LP.

Are you talking about the Charisma remaster, or the ATCO remaster? I
don't know that they are the same.

Way too bright, too much sibilance, etc.
The original Charisma CD is excellent, very similar to the LP.

Never heard the original Charisma CD, just the ATCO version released in
the US. And again "...nothing remotely like..." is another *vast*
overstatement IMO and IME. And you'll note that I said absolutely
nothing about the remaster sounding like the LP. I said the ATCO
remastered version I own is clearly superior IMO to the Charisma LP.
Not at all the same claim.

Keith Hughes

[[email protected]]

Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
UC wrote:
On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

snip

Actually the early 90s might be the golden age, as it was in the midst of
the *FIRST* wave of remasters, where MEs were going back to original
master tapes rather than LP production masters,
but not yet overdoing compression (noise reduction was still
applied too aggressively sometimes though).

Remasters since 1995 or so have often has *less* dynamic range than those, IME.


Likely you are correct. Looking back at my old stuff, most of the CDs I
was discussing were late 80's. The remasters were done 1994. The
cobwebs thicken...

Keith Hughes

[Bill Noble[_2_]]

wrote in message
...
Steven Sullivan wrote:
wrote:
UC wrote:
On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, Steven Sullivan wrote:

snip

Actually the early 90s might be the golden age, as it was in the midst of
the *FIRST* wave of remasters, where MEs were going back to original
master tapes rather than LP production masters,
but not yet overdoing compression (noise reduction was still
applied too aggressively sometimes though).

Remasters since 1995 or so have often has *less* dynamic range than
those, IME.


Likely you are correct. Looking back at my old stuff, most of the CDs I
was discussing were late 80's. The remasters were done 1994. The
cobwebs thicken...

Keith Hughes


Look for an article in IEEE spectrum within the last 2 years about the
change in mastering technique, and specifically the elimination of virtually
all dynamic range on "modern" CDs - this will perhaps illuminate the issue

[glenbadd]

On Oct 9, 11:05=A0pm, "Edmund" wrote:
Are you sure? That seems extremely odd to me since avoiding clipping
is a very basic requirement for digital recording.
I am not familiar with Audacity but I happen to know that at least some
programs show a wave as a straight line between the samples instead of
rebuilding the proper wave form. Therefore it may look like a square
wave or top but in reality it isn't.
Do you have a title of such a CD for me?

Edmund

Yes, it is a basic requirement, but some mastering engineers seem to
ignore it. In audacity, find a peak and keep zooming
in on it until individual samples are shown. Its easy to spot a series
of
samples that flat line at maximum possible +ve or -ve value.
Yet other discs do not even approach the max, even by 6db, essentially
throwing away 1 of 16 bits of resolution.

Do you have a title of such a CD for me?

Most recent one noticed, +ve flatline for 6 samples on first
crash cymbal in Dire Straits - Communique (remastered
issue CD 800 052-2) - Track 1 - Once upon a time in the west
at 26.21919 seconds. The next one is 7 samples +ve flatline
on a loud guitar riff at 59.194469 seconds.

A really bad example is Audioslave - Revelations - track 1
- Revelations. It +ve and -ve flat lines on every snare drum
beat in the entire 4:10 track. The rest of the album is similar.
Audioslave are a heavy rock band, so its not surprising
they succumed to the loudness wars.

[UC]

On Oct 10, 4:25 pm, wrote:
UC wrote:
On Oct 9, 7:55 am, wrote:
UC wrote:
On Oct 7, 11:19 pm, allen wrote:

snip

Well, clearly your experience differs from mine. As for Genesis, I had
British LPs of Trick of The Tail, Winds and Wuthering, and Selling
England By The Pound. Without exception, the British LP versions were
superior to the first release CD's. Also without exception, the CD
remasters are far superior to the British LP's. YMMV of course, but
that's the point.

Keith Hughes

No,

In your opinion...

the remaster of Trick of the tail, at least, is nothing remotely
like the British Charisma LP.

Are you talking about the Charisma remaster, or the ATCO remaster? I
don't know that they are the same.

Way too bright, too much sibilance, etc.
The original Charisma CD is excellent, very similar to the LP.

Never heard the original Charisma CD, just the ATCO version released in
the US. And again "...nothing remotely like..." is another *vast*
overstatement IMO and IME. And you'll note that I said absolutely
nothing about the remaster sounding like the LP. I said the ATCO
remastered version I own is clearly superior IMO to the Charisma LP.
Not at all the same claim.

Keith Hughes

I owned the original Charisma UK LP. It was excellent. I had bought
the ATCO LP prior to that. The Charisma was superior in every way. The
remastered ATCO CD was horrible, too bright. I don't know whether
there is another remaster sourced from the UK that is a different
remaster. I got hold of the Charisma CD and found it overall very
similar to the UK Charisma LP.

[[email protected]]

UC wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:25 pm, wrote:
UC wrote:
On Oct 9, 7:55 am, wrote:
UC wrote:
On Oct 7, 11:19 pm, allen wrote:
snip


I owned the original Charisma UK LP. It was excellent. I had bought
the ATCO LP prior to that. The Charisma was superior in every way.

I agree, so far...

The
remastered ATCO CD was horrible, too bright.

Not my experience / opinion at all. Sounded great when I listened to it
again today. And since none of them sound remotely like the live
versions I've heard (live, not "recorded live"), there is no "reference"
other than personal taste.

Keith Hughes

[UC]

On Oct 13, 10:16 am, wrote:
UC wrote:
On Oct 10, 4:25 pm, wrote:
UC wrote:
On Oct 9, 7:55 am, wrote:
UC wrote:
On Oct 7, 11:19 pm, allen wrote:

snip



I owned the original Charisma UK LP. It was excellent. I had bought
the ATCO LP prior to that. The Charisma was superior in every way.

I agree, so far...

The
remastered ATCO CD was horrible, too bright.

Not my experience / opinion at all. Sounded great when I listened to it
again today. And since none of them sound remotely like the live
versions I've heard (live, not "recorded live"), there is no "reference"
other than personal taste.

Keith Hughes

The ATCO remaster is intolerably bright. I don't understand how you
cannot hear that. The "reference" has to be the Charisma LP, made in
England.

[[email protected]]

On 5 Oct 2009 22:43:46 GMT, UC wrote:

Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
it's HORRID!

Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!

Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.

Try the remaster of Pearl Jam's "Ten" album. It's a vast improvement
over the original release IMO.
Dave

[[email protected]]

UC wrote:
On Oct 13, 10:16 am, wrote:
snip

The ATCO remaster is intolerably bright. I don't understand how you
cannot hear that.

And I don't understand why you feel that your opinion should be the
standard for all.

The "reference" has to be the Charisma LP, made in
England.

Have you heard a live performance by Genesis that sounds just like the
Charisma LP? I certainly haven't, nor has anyone else I'd wager - they
tend to be very "bright" when playing live. That's the point, the LP
doesn't represent a single live event, and thus the Charisma LP is no
more "accurate" than any other. Simply a matter of personal taste. And
since I've listened to the ATCO remaster dozens of times, if not 100 in
the last decade, it certainly can't be "intolerable" in any sense other
than relative to individual taste.

The ATCO LP on the other hand I found to be typically a poor pressing,
with noticeable inner groove distortions that I didn't hear (or find
objectionable in any event) on the Charisma LP. I found the same issue
with the Renaissance LP's on Sire - 4 out of 5 pressings were almost
unlistenable out of the cover, or after two or three plays. Others here
reported finding no problems with them.

Keith Hughes

[UC]

On Oct 13, 2:06 pm, Dick Pierce wrote:
UC wrote:
The "reference" has to be the Charisma LP, made in
England.

Why?

What if all the versions are "wrong?" What if that
particular LP is uncharacteristically dull for an LP?
It comes down, then, to a matter of which wrong a
person likes.

Well one has to accept that the UK LP was reasonably close to what the
thing is supposed to sound like. After all, the band was involved at
the time. It was not 'dull' at all.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
Dick Pierce wrote:

Mastering engineers have the good sense of not
pretending they are musicians. The music world
would be a lot better of if musicians would stop
pretending they knew anything about mastering. They
don't.

As Wilma Cozart said to Frederick Fennell at their first meeting, "You
don't tell me how to record, I won't tell you how to conduct." ;-)

That said, it would seem that the performer should well know how the
product should sound.

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 05:31:22 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
Dick Pierce wrote:

Mastering engineers have the good sense of not
pretending they are musicians. The music world
would be a lot better of if musicians would stop
pretending they knew anything about mastering. They
don't.

As Wilma Cozart said to Frederick Fennell at their first meeting, "You
don't tell me how to record, I won't tell you how to conduct." ;-)

That said, it would seem that the performer should well know how the
product should sound.

Only to a certain point. For instance, a symphony conductor knows how he/she
wants the orchestra's performance to sound from the podium, but I doubt
seriously if a conductor would be a great judge of how the performance should
sound from, say, the balcony, or even the fifth-row, center. The musicians,
OTOH, have an even less clear idea of how their individual performances
relate to the whole. That's not to say that they have NO IDEA of the
relationship of their contribution to the whole, just that their prospective
has little relationship to that of the audience, either in the concert hall,
or at home on recordings.

Pop musicians are at even more of a disadvantage as their performances often
don't even exist in real time and or space but rather are a result of the
collaboration between the musicians, the record company A&R people, the
producer, and the recording engineer as well as that engineer's tools. Sure,
the group knows what they're after, musically, but the individual
characteristics of overall sound balance is usually out of their hands, and
most of them are not listening for the same things as their audience is
listening for anyway. This last point is generally true of most musicians, in
my experience. Most musicians don't seem to care much about "Fi". I've had
professional musicians tell me that they can hear what they're listening for
in their instrument on a table radio.

I personally know a fairly prominent world-class conductor. One would think
that he would have a first-rate stereo system. He doesn't. He listens to his
own performances on one of those oversized Japanese boom-boxes that are
tuner, amp, CD player, and cassette recorder/player all in one with
detachable speakers. It sounds DREADFUL. When I asked him once if he had any
comments about the sound of the recordings I was giving him, I expected him
to say something about the tonal balance; i.e., it's too bright, or too dull,
or not enough bass, you know, that sort of criticism. But instead, his
comments were that he would like to hear more of the strings (the violin was
his personal instrument). Of course, I really couldn't do that for him
without upsetting the balance of the recording all out of proportion, but
that's what he cared about; the string sound. As far as he was concerned, the
rest of the orchestra existed to support the strings.

So, that said, I would have to conclude that the above statement that the
performer should know how the product is supposed to sound, is not really
true from possible perspectives and Wilma Cozart Fine was quite right when
she told Frederick Fennell to not try to tell her how to record and that she
wouldn't tell Fennell how to conduct. She KNEW that Fennell's perspective had
little to do with that of her, or indeed, his, audience.

[Rob Tweed]

On 14 Oct 2009 02:31:10 GMT, Dick Pierce
wrote:

There is nothing intrinsic whatsoever about "the
band being involved" that would ensure ANY specifc
result. I have heard the product of a number of bands
and conductors and performers acting as their own
mastering engineer that resulted in truly dreadful
results, and if not for the intervention of a real
live mastering engineer, would have been a total
sonic catastrophe.

Mastering engineers have the good sense of not
pretending they are musicians. The music world
would be a lot better of if musicians would stop
pretending they knew anything about mastering. They
don't.

....particularly when, in this instance, Phil Collins is reported to
have pretty bad hearing problems!

( eg see
http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/...king_fans_deaf)

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com

[bob]

On Oct 14, 12:04=A0pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 05:31:22 -0700, Jenn wrote
(in article ):

That said, it would seem that the performer should well know how the
product should sound.

Only to a certain point. For instance, a symphony conductor knows how he/=
she
wants the orchestra's performance to sound from the podium, but I doubt
seriously if a conductor would be a great judge of how the performance sh=
ould
sound from, say, the balcony, or even the fifth-row, center.

But that's not the right question in this case. The right question in
this case is, how should the performance sound in a living room, or a
car, or over earbuds? (It occurs to me, just as an aside, that stock
iPod earbuds may now be the single most popular playback transducer in
the world.)

That's a question the engineer is eminently more qualified to answer
than the musician. The question for the musician=97and it's also an
important one=97is, does this mastering convey what you wanted to
convey?

bob