Remasters

[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/music/beatles-box-in-stereo-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/philcollins/articles/story/8841090/music_making_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

[[email protected]]

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

<snip>

>> 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 doub=
t
>> 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.
>=20
> 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.)
>=20
> 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?

And even more than that, we were not discussing a recording of a unique=20
acoustic event, but a construct created in a recording studio. As=20
discussed here many times, re. accuracy, for studio creations made with=20
electronic and electrically amplified instruments, there really is no=20
"reference" as there was likely no discreet "event" as such.

Keith Hughes

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:43:53 -0700, bob wrote
(in article >):

> 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.)

Sigh! I understand that. But if a conductor or other musician is unlikely to
have a feel for how the music sounds in the concert venue, how likely is he
to have a feel for the same performance heard via recording or broadcast?

> That's a question the engineer is eminently more qualified to answer
> than the musician.

I think I pretty much said that.

The question for the musician=97and it's also an
> important one=97is, does this mastering convey what you wanted to
> convey?

What who wants to convey? Those who make the music or those who record and
package it?

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
Dick Pierce > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
> > 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.
>
> The auditory perspective that many musicians have is unique
> and VASTLY different than what an audience member has. One
> would have a difficult time denying that what the violinist
> hears is not what a listner 30 feet away hears. The same is
> true of pretty much any solo performer with, perhaps, the
> exception of some organists playing some pipe organs. I know
> from my own experience that what I have heard when playing
> an organ or one of my harpsichords sound radically different
> than hearing that same organ or harpsichord being played while
> I sit some distance away.

Of course. But the point is that the task at hand, IMO, is to create
the sound "in the performer's head". Do we disagree on that point?

[UC]

On Oct 14, 7:09 pm, wrote:
> bob wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 12:04 pm, Sonnova > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 05:31:22 -0700, Jenn wrote
> >> (in article >):
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> 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 doub=
> t
> >> 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.
> >=20
> > 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.)
> >=20
> > 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?
>
> And even more than that, we were not discussing a recording of a unique=20
> acoustic event, but a construct created in a recording studio. As=20
> discussed here many times, re. accuracy, for studio creations made with=20
> electronic and electrically amplified instruments, there really is no=20
> "reference" as there was likely no discreet "event" as such.
>
> Keith Hughes

Right, and in my opinion the overall sound of the original Charisma LP
was very good, and "typical" Genesis sound of the period. There was
good distribution of bass, mid-range, and treble. The ATCO LP was
noticeably inferior. In comparing the Charisma CD and the Charisma LP,
I hear no significant balance differences. The original ATCO CD seems
similar to the original US ATCO LP, kind of weak and pinched.

The ATCO remaster (which may or may not be sourced from the UK
originally; I don't really care) is noticeably brighter, exaggerating
sibilance on Collins' vocals on certain tracks. There was a kind of EQ
applied to make his voice sound strange on certain tracks, and the
remastering-induced brightness is not flattering to those tracks.

My advice is to get the original Charisma LP AND CD and compare them
to the ATCO remaster.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 15, 8:57=A0am, Dick Pierce > wrote:
> Scott wrote:
> > On Oct 14, 9:02 am, Dick Pierce > wrote:
> >>Jenn wrote:
> >>>That said, it would seem that the performer should well know how the
> >>>product should sound.
>
> >>The auditory perspective that many musicians have is unique
> >>and VASTLY different than what an audience member has.
>
> >>The auditory perspective that many rock musicians have is
> >>unique and VASTLY different that what many in the audience
> >>have. Not a small number of rock musicians are stone deaf
> >>due to hearing damage caused by years of exposure to
> >>deafeing sound levels.
>
> >>Add to that the fact that the vast majority of musicians
> >>are not trained in the art and science of mastering and,
>
> > the idea that they somehow all lack the perspective to
>
> =A0> have a legitimate opinion about the results is a stretch.
>
> Speaking of reading comprehension, ...
>
> Can you explain how the leap is made from "many musicians",
> "many rock musicians," and "not a small number of rock
> musicians" to "they somehow all." If it's a stretch you seek,
> Scott, you needn't look any farther than your own post.
>
> And "opinions?" Well, they're just like ...

Fair enough. you said many I said all. But I think you painted a very
unrealistic picture of musicians. The musician who does not listen to
music just as we do is a the extreme rarity. What musicians can you
name that don't listen to other peoples' music just as any other
person does? So did say "many." I agree that musicians like other non
pro mastering engineers lack the skills to do that job. That is a
basic truism of most skilled jobs. But the "judgement" is another
thing altogether. Sure some musicians have made some bad calls. So
have some mastering engineers! But who is there keeping tally
everytime a musician makes a good call in the studio?

Yeah, thank goodness for the handfull of great mastering engineers and
their product when it is not fettered by stone deaf dumb people in
power. Too bad for the mediocre and **** poor mastering engineers that
have botched so many recordings just beacuse of their own incompetance
and poor judgement. And sure, too bad for all the times that some old
deaf rock and roll fart got in there and had the mastering engineer
compress the life out of the recording and boost the highs to ear
bleed levels just so he could hear what was on the recording. I have
one of those records. But musicians as a group are hardly uniquely
underqualified to pass judgement on sound quality. It's urban legend
at best with no meaningful support. Now if you want to narrow the
discussion to remasters of rock music where the musicians are near
deaf and are supervising then I would agree. keep them out of the
picture, they are near deaf. I wouldn't want Brian Wilson supervising
anything in stereo. Or if you want to name a few individual conductors
sure. But let's not take a few examples and draw broad based
conclusions. Jimmy Page, Stokowski and Brain Wilson don't add up to
many.

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message


> Solo artists never listen to other solo artists?

If you haven't noticed, I hasten to point out that musical artists generally
all sound different. It even seems that the better they are, the more they
sound different. They can play the same notes with timing and intensity
that is as close as they can make it and they still sound different.

> Conductors never sit in the audience seats
> during a rehearsal?

A person would have to be pretty deaf to not hear the rather gross
difference between the sound of an empty hall and a full or partially full
hall.


> Rock musicians don't listen to their
> recordings on stereos like everyone else?


A lot of the musicians I work with try to avoid listening to recordings of
themselves playing because its never anything like what they hear when they
play. They often fear that they will sound bad because they are so acutely
aware of their failings as musicians.

> they don't
> listen to other recording artists like everyone else?

It has often been observed that musicians don't listen to musical recordings
like everyone else. We hear sound, they hear music. Two different worlds.

> All sounds pretty far fetched.

It sounds far fetched to me that more people aren't aware of at least some
of the items I've presented above, especially how different groups sound
during rehearsals and actual performances.

Another thing - there's an old saying in live recording - add 10 dB to the
levels during rehearsal so that you don't get clipping during the
performance, because the musicians get far more excited due to the presence
of the audience, and simply play and sing louder. YMMV.

> Oh by the way, Stan Ricker
> plays stand up bass and Steve Hoffman players guitar.


> Guess those mastering engineers didn't get the memo about
> pretending to be musicians.

Just because performing and mixing are two different worlds doesn't mean
that people can't travel between them.

> Jeez, no one is saying
> musicians should try to be mastering engineers but the
> idea that they somehow all lack the perspective to have a
> legitimate opinion about the results is a stretch.

The question is not whether their perspective is legitimate, but whether its
the one that works best for the public.

Should makeup artists try to be directors, cameramen, and film editors, or
should they stick to achieving the best possible results in their area of
specialty? Stuff like this (jack of all trades) happens in small
productions, but in general we get the best results when people specialize
and try to do their own jobs best.

[Arny Krueger]

"Dick Pierce" > wrote in message


> There is nothing intrinsic whatsoever about "the
> band being involved" that would ensure ANY specific
> 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.

Point very well taken. I do a lot of live recording and live sound work, and
work closely with both music directors and musicians, for whom I generally
have considerable respect and work well with.

Nevertheless, few working musicians know what they sound like to the
audience during a performance. They generally have no idea what they sound
like in the control room. When they hear themselves on the finished
recording, it is usually at least a bit of surprise.

There is a very good reason for this - they are rather busy elsewhere at the
time of the performance, making music. I often move freely among musicians
while they are practicing. The sound in the group is nothing at all like the
sound in the room.

Even most music directors have only a foggy notion of what their groups
sound like. What some do is stop directing or at least vastly reduce the
intimacy of their direction and the precision of their control and come out
into the empty seats and listen to what the group sounds like. Obviously,
there are at least two asymmetries and often three - the director's control
over the playing is vastly reduced and they are listening in an empty room.
The third asymmetry is that many directors actually play or sing with their
groups.

Musicians and directors may know what other groups sound like, but as we all
know - different musical groups sound different, even when they are trying
to obtain a reference sound from a well-known piece of music that "everybody
plays". Furthermore, most music isn't alike at any level - most groups play
and/or sing different arrangements of different basic works with different
instrumentation.

The overall supervisory and management function of recording, mixing, and
mastering engineers and producers is easy to underestimate. It can be
extremely significant. In fact, they may be the only people in the entire
process who are intimately familiar with what the recorded work sounds like
as a whole, both what it should sound like and what it does sound like.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 06:54:49 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>> Solo artists never listen to other solo artists?
>
> If you haven't noticed, I hasten to point out that musical artists generally
> all sound different. It even seems that the better they are, the more they
> sound different. They can play the same notes with timing and intensity
> that is as close as they can make it and they still sound different.

Of course, artists listen to other artists, but again, they listen for
different things than you and I listen for. Some even have favorites. For
instance, the singer, Harry Connick Jr., has often said that his favorite
singer was Sinatra. He says that he has every song Ol' Blue Eyes ever
recorded. Still, while the two singer's voices are similar, they're styles
are worlds apart
>
>> Conductors never sit in the audience seats
>> during a rehearsal?
>
> A person would have to be pretty deaf to not hear the rather gross
> difference between the sound of an empty hall and a full or partially full
> hall.

To answer the question, conductors RARELY sit in the audience seats during
rehearsal. They probably do when there's a guest conductor, but other than
that, when the ensemble is playing, they're generally on the podium... er...
conducting.

>
>> Rock musicians don't listen to their
>> recordings on stereos like everyone else?
>
>
> A lot of the musicians I work with try to avoid listening to recordings of
> themselves playing because its never anything like what they hear when they
> play. They often fear that they will sound bad because they are so acutely
> aware of their failings as musicians.

They also fear that they will pick-up stylistic tricks from other musicians
which might tend to "dilute" their own unique "sound".
>
>> they don't
>> listen to other recording artists like everyone else?
>
> It has often been observed that musicians don't listen to musical recordings
> like everyone else. We hear sound, they hear music. Two different worlds.

Well put and quite true.
>
>> All sounds pretty far fetched.
>
> It sounds far fetched to me that more people aren't aware of at least some
> of the items I've presented above, especially how different groups sound
> during rehearsals and actual performances.
>
> Another thing - there's an old saying in live recording - add 10 dB to the
> levels during rehearsal so that you don't get clipping during the
> performance, because the musicians get far more excited due to the presence
> of the audience, and simply play and sing louder. YMMV.

Oh, this is VERY true. It's not just an old saying, I've seen it happen over
and over and over again.
>
>> Oh by the way, Stan Ricker
>> plays stand up bass and Steve Hoffman players guitar.
>
>
>> Guess those mastering engineers didn't get the memo about
>> pretending to be musicians.
>
> Just because performing and mixing are two different worlds doesn't mean
> that people can't travel between them.
>
>> Jeez, no one is saying
>> musicians should try to be mastering engineers but the
>> idea that they somehow all lack the perspective to have a
>> legitimate opinion about the results is a stretch.
>
> The question is not whether their perspective is legitimate, but whether its
> the one that works best for the public.
>
> Should makeup artists try to be directors, cameramen, and film editors, or
> should they stick to achieving the best possible results in their area of
> specialty? Stuff like this (jack of all trades) happens in small
> productions, but in general we get the best results when people specialize
> and try to do their own jobs best.

Yep.

[Harry Lavo]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
> "Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
>
>
>> There is nothing intrinsic whatsoever about "the
>> band being involved" that would ensure ANY specific
>> 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.
>
> Point very well taken. I do a lot of live recording and live sound work,
> and
> work closely with both music directors and musicians, for whom I generally
> have considerable respect and work well with.
>
> Nevertheless, few working musicians know what they sound like to the
> audience during a performance. They generally have no idea what they sound
> like in the control room. When they hear themselves on the finished
> recording, it is usually at least a bit of surprise.
>
> There is a very good reason for this - they are rather busy elsewhere at
> the
> time of the performance, making music. I often move freely among musicians
> while they are practicing. The sound in the group is nothing at all like
> the
> sound in the room.
>
> Even most music directors have only a foggy notion of what their groups
> sound like. What some do is stop directing or at least vastly reduce the
> intimacy of their direction and the precision of their control and come
> out
> into the empty seats and listen to what the group sounds like. Obviously,
> there are at least two asymmetries and often three - the director's
> control
> over the playing is vastly reduced and they are listening in an empty
> room.
> The third asymmetry is that many directors actually play or sing with
> their
> groups.
>
> Musicians and directors may know what other groups sound like, but as we
> all
> know - different musical groups sound different, even when they are trying
> to obtain a reference sound from a well-known piece of music that
> "everybody
> plays". Furthermore, most music isn't alike at any level - most groups
> play
> and/or sing different arrangements of different basic works with different
> instrumentation.
>
> The overall supervisory and management function of recording, mixing, and
> mastering engineers and producers is easy to underestimate. It can be
> extremely significant. In fact, they may be the only people in the entire
> process who are intimately familiar with what the recorded work sounds
> like
> as a whole, both what it should sound like and what it does sound like.


Yes, musicians to listen to the music/performance first. But they are not
oblivious to "sound"....they just usually have a somewhat different
vocabularly to describe things. I have found listening to their
performances with professional musicians, and discussions as to "sound"
where vocabulary differences are discussed and clarified, usually leads to a
commonality of perspective. Musicians come to understand "organic" and
recordists come to understand "sparkle".

[anthony]

On 19 Oct, 04:53, "Harry Lavo" > wrote:
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > "Dick Pierce" > wrote in message
>
>
> >> There is nothing intrinsic whatsoever about "the
> >> band being involved" that would ensure ANY specific
> >> 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.
>
> > Point very well taken. I do a lot of live recording and live sound work=
,
> > and
> > work closely with both music directors and musicians, for whom I genera=
lly
> > have considerable respect and work well with.
>
> > Nevertheless, few working musicians know what they sound like to the
> > audience during a performance. They generally have no idea what they so=
und
> > like in the control room. When they hear themselves on the finished
> > recording, it is usually at least a bit of surprise.
>
> > There is a very good reason for this - they are rather busy elsewhere a=
t
> > the
> > time of the performance, making music. I often move freely among musici=
ans
> > while they are practicing. The sound in the group is nothing at all lik=
e
> > the
> > sound in the room.
>
> > Even most music directors have only a foggy notion of what their groups
> > sound like. What some do is stop directing or at least vastly reduce th=
e
> > intimacy of their direction and the precision of their control and come
> > out
> > into the empty seats and listen to what the group sounds like. Obviousl=
y,
> > there are at least two asymmetries and often three - the director's
> > control
> > over the playing is vastly reduced and they are listening in an empty
> > room.
> > The third asymmetry is that many directors actually play or sing with
> > their
> > groups.
>
> > Musicians and directors may know what other groups sound like, but as w=
e
> > all
> > know - different musical groups sound different, even when they are try=
ing
> > to obtain a reference sound from a well-known piece of music that
> > "everybody
> > plays". Furthermore, most music isn't alike at any level - most groups
> > play
> > and/or sing different arrangements of different basic works with differ=
ent
> > instrumentation.
>
> > The overall supervisory and management function of recording, mixing, a=
nd
> > mastering engineers and producers is easy to underestimate. =A0It can b=
e
> > extremely significant. =A0In fact, they may be the only people in the e=
ntire
> > process who are intimately familiar with what the recorded work sounds
> > like
> > as a whole, both what it should sound like and what it does sound like.
>
> Yes, musicians to listen to the =A0music/performance first. =A0But they a=
re not
> oblivious to "sound"....they just usually have a somewhat different
> vocabularly to describe things. =A0I have found listening to their
> performances with professional musicians, and discussions as to "sound"
> where vocabulary differences are discussed and clarified, usually leads t=
o a
> commonality of perspective. =A0 Musicians come to understand "organic" an=
d
> recordists come to understand "sparkle".

To get back to the original topic -- the sound of the remastered
Beatles set.
I've had just about every incarnation of Beatles recording, from the
original 45s, through the original Parlophone LPs, then the dreadful
1987 CD releases, and then the improved Dr Ebbett transcriptions from
the Mobile Fidelity LPs.
And I find it very puzzling that the original poster finds these new
transfers 'shrill', with no decent bass.
The most telling point of these new transfers is that absolutely no
compression has been used, nor noise-removal techniques. Well, none
at all for the mono set, and about five minutes in total content only
for the stereo set. And the most potent difference between these
transfers and the first CDs is not just the crisp articulation, but
beautifully grounded, gutsy bass. Nothing shrill at all. And I find on
balance that the mono versions of most, right up to SGt Pepper, is the
preferred version -- from Sgt Pepper on there are swings and
roundabout....
These are wonderful transfers. And I find the sound is just about as
revelatory as was the Stones' reissues on SACD, and the early Dylan
LPs in their SACD format. They do show in fact that proper discretion
by the reissue engineers is the most important factor, more important
than whether the issue is on CD or SACD.
Mind you, there is a special bloom on the best of my SACDs, especially
for Miles Davis, and the early stereo classical recordings from
Mercury and RCA, which I doubt could ever be matched on CD. But these
Beatles transfers are, at long last, the real thing. The old thrill is
back.
Anthony

[Steven Sullivan]

UC > wrote:
> 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.

First, Genesis was not always happy with the sound they
got on record...especially the early ones.

Second, the band was involved with the remixes too. And those have been
called intolerably bright, loud, compressed, whatever, by some disgruntled
fans. Yet the band approved them.

So best be careful what authorities you cite.

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

[Arny Krueger]

"Harry Lavo" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> ...

>> The overall supervisory and management function of
>> recording, mixing, and mastering engineers and producers
>> is easy to underestimate. It can be extremely
>> significant. In fact, they may be the only people in
>> the entire process who are intimately familiar with what
>> the recorded work sounds like
>> as a whole, both what it should sound like and what it
>> does sound like.

> Yes, musicians to listen to the music/performance first.

Not true. Musicians listen to just their part of the performance first.

> But they are not oblivious to "sound"

Their primary interest is the music, which is very different and distinct
from sound as we audiophiles perceive it.

[Doug McDonald[_4_]]

Jenn wrote:

>
> Of course. But the point is that the task at hand, IMO, is to create
> the sound "in the performer's head". Do we disagree on that point?
>

I certainly do. The point is to recreate the sound in
the listener's ear. (Barring special effects like cannons in the 1812
Overture.)

Doug McDonald

[Sonnova]

On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 06:47:25 -0700, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article >):

> "Harry Lavo" > wrote in message
>
>> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>> The overall supervisory and management function of
>>> recording, mixing, and mastering engineers and producers
>>> is easy to underestimate. It can be extremely
>>> significant. In fact, they may be the only people in
>>> the entire process who are intimately familiar with what
>>> the recorded work sounds like
>>> as a whole, both what it should sound like and what it
>>> does sound like.
>
>> Yes, musicians to listen to the music/performance first.
>
> Not true. Musicians listen to just their part of the performance first.
>
>> But they are not oblivious to "sound"
>
> Their primary interest is the music, which is very different and distinct
> from sound as we audiophiles perceive it.
>
>
>

I think that any "audio type" who has spent any time at all around musicians
(like, say, recording them) would have noticed what Arny and I have noticed.
I.E., what he says above is not merely a generalization, but is, absolutely
true.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 18, 6:54=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Solo artists never listen to other solo artists?
>
> If you haven't noticed, I hasten to point out that musical artists genera=
lly
> all sound different. It even seems that the better they are, the more the=
y
> sound different. =A0They can play the same notes with timing and intensit=
y
> that is as close as they can make it and they still sound different.

Stylistically yes. But there is nothing acoustically unique about
them. When I was in New Orleans on a flim last year the music joints
were widely populated by fellow musicians. I'm pretty sure those
musicians were hearing the same sounds I was hearing. I'm confident
that despite some protests on this forum musicians actually do have a
very good idea of what other musicians sound like from an audience
perspective.I actually do know a few musicians in this world. I they
are all avid concert goers. I have only heard *of* one musician who
actively avoids listening to other artists' work. She is a famous
recluse.


>
> > Conductors never sit in the audience seats
> > during a rehearsal?
>
> A person would have to be pretty deaf to not hear the rather gross
> difference between the sound of an empty hall and a full or partially ful=
l
> hall.


Reletviely small compared to the difference one hears from the podium.
It's a matter of perspective. Heck no two seats in any concert hall
offer exactly the same sound. No two concert halls sound exactly the
same. We are talking about a broad shpere of sounds here. And I think
the idea that conductors are completely outside that sphere is both
absurd and down right insulting to them.


>
> > Rock musicians don't listen to their
> > recordings on stereos like everyone else?
>
> A lot of the musicians I work with try to avoid listening to recordings o=
f
> themselves playing because its never anything like what they hear when th=
ey
> play. They often fear that they will sound bad because they are so acutel=
y
> aware of their failings as musicians.

But you don't work with rock musicians of any significance. I suspect
you don't pay to much attention to what they say about their own music
either. Is it really your position that musicians aren't listening to
their work while recording in studio because they fear they suck? Are
you suggesting that they don't listen to and evaluate their final
product before going to market for the same fear? I am a little bit
shocked by this assertion. One need look no further than any garden
variety documentary like the "behind the music" series to see how
completely wrong this assertion is.
>
> > they don't
> > listen to other recording artists like everyone else?
>
> It has often been observed that musicians don't listen to musical recordi=
ngs
> like everyone else. We hear sound, they hear music. Two different worlds.

It has often been observed that there is more police and ER activity
during a full moon. "Observed" by police and ER workers no less. And
yet studies show it is pure urban legend. that is basically my point.
These anecdotal observations are meaningless. By the way, I hear music
when I listen to music. Maybe you just hear sound.


>
> > All sounds pretty far fetched.
>
> It sounds far fetched to me that more people aren't aware of at least som=
e
> of the items I've presented above, especially how different groups sound
> during rehearsals and actual performances.
>
> Another thing - there's an old saying in live recording - add 10 dB to th=
e
> levels during rehearsal so that you don't get clipping during the
> performance, because the musicians get far more excited due to the presen=
ce
> of the audience, and simply play and sing louder. YMMV.


Yeah and make sure there are no musicians in the audience. We don't
want them hearing what it sounds like.


>
> > Oh by the way, Stan Ricker
> > plays stand up bass and Steve Hoffman players guitar.
> > Guess those mastering engineers didn't get the memo about
> > pretending to be musicians.
>
> Just because performing and mixing are two different worlds doesn't mean
> that people can't travel between them.

They are mastering engineers. They don't mix. But I agree. You might
want to tell Dick that since it was his assertion that mastering
engineers don't pretend to be musicians.


>
> > =A0Jeez, no one is saying
> > musicians should try to be mastering engineers but the
> > idea that they somehow all lack the perspective to have a
> > legitimate opinion about the results is a stretch.
>
> The question is not whether their perspective is legitimate, but whether =
its
> the one that works best for the public.

Not sure where that question gets us. Oh yes I am. It gets us to stuff
like Hannah Montana. Look at her sales. Clearly her out put is
"working" for the public.


>
> Should makeup artists try to be directors, cameramen, and film editors, o=
r
> should they stick to achieving the best possible results in their area of
> specialty? =A0 Stuff like this (jack of all trades) happens in small
> productions, but in general we get the best results when people specializ=
e
> and try to do their own jobs best.

Ever see a Ron Howard movie? Should he have stuck to acting?

People should do what their passion dictates to them. IME
specialization often leads to a disconnect between the workers and the
product. Especially in artistic endeavours. Many artisans actually
befefit greatly from having a wide range of knowledge and experience
that extends beyond their specific area of expertise. I just had lunch
with an old friend of mine, Joe Rohde who is a fairly prominant
Imagineer over at Disney. He was going on and on about how important a
broad base is for any artist and how limited specialists are in their
utility when they lack such a base. He was talking about their need to
study history, antrhopology, psychology etc. Yeah, the last thing I
want is colaberations between specialists that live in a vacuum of
complete disconnect with other disciplines.

[UC]

On Oct 19, 8:58 am, Steven Sullivan > wrote:
> UC > wrote:
> > 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.
>
> First, Genesis was not always happy with the sound they
> got on record...especially the early ones.

Well TOTT is not an "early" one (it was released in 1976).

> Second, the band was involved with the remixes too. And those have been
> called intolerably bright, loud, compressed, whatever, by some disgruntled
> fans. Yet the band approved them.

Maybe they're DEAF.
>
> So best be careful what authorities you cite.

The band in 1976, not the band in 1999.
>
> --
> -S
> We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
Doug McDonald > wrote:

> Jenn wrote:
>
> >
> > Of course. But the point is that the task at hand, IMO, is to create
> > the sound "in the performer's head". Do we disagree on that point?
> >
>
> I certainly do. The point is to recreate the sound in
> the listener's ear.

Which (theoretical) listener? In what (usually non-existent) seat?

[Arny Krueger]

"Scott" > wrote in message

> On Oct 18, 6:54=A0am, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>> "Scott" > wrote in message
>>
>>

>>> Solo artists never listen to other solo artists?

>> If you haven't noticed, I hasten to point out that
>> musical artists generally all sound different. It even
>> seems that the better they are, the more they sound
>> different.They can play the same notes with timing
>> and intensity that is as close as they can make it and
>> they still sound different.

> Stylistically yes. But there is nothing acoustically
> unique about them.

What does acoustically unique mean?


> When I was in New Orleans on a flim
> last year the music joints were widely populated by
> fellow musicians.

I didn't know that you were a professional musician.

> I'm pretty sure those musicians were
> hearing the same sounds I was hearing.

I doubt it, given that it is impossible for two people to occupy the same
space, and small displacements can cause large differences.

Also, the only evidence presented is your supposition. Perhaps you should
cut to the chase and say that you suppose that you are right and that I am
wrong and that is that. Then we can dispense with the trouble of trying to
discuss the matter in an intelligent way...

> I'm confident that
> despite some protests on this forum musicians actually do
> have a very good idea of what other musicians sound like
> from an audience perspective

Again, the only evidence presented here is your supposition. Your comments
have thus far missed the point that the musican's can't possibly hear
themselves play from the perspective of the audience because they can't be
in two places at the same time.

>I actually do know a few musicians in this world.

That would be a truism. I don't know of anybody who doesn't know a few
musicians. If you haven't noticed, there are a lot of musicians in the
world.

> I (think) they are all avid concert goers.

Since you have admitted that you only know a few musicians and you are again
making a supposition, it would be illogical to draw any conclusions from
this statement.

> I have only heard *of* one musician who actively
> avoids listening to other artists' work. She is a famous
> recluse.

Again, I see no evidence that relates to the point that I made.

>>> Conductors never sit in the audience seats
>>> during a rehearsal?
>>
>> A person would have to be pretty deaf to not hear the
>> rather gross difference between the sound of an empty
>> hall and a full or partially ful= l hall.

> Reletively small compared to the difference one hears
> from the podium.

Again, I see no evidence that relates to the point that I made.

> It's a matter of perspective. Heck no
> two seats in any concert hall offer exactly the same
> sound. No two concert halls sound exactly the same. We
> are talking about a broad shpere of sounds here. And I
> think the idea that conductors are completely outside
> that sphere is both absurd and down right insulting to
> them.

Again, I see no reliable hard evidence that relates to the point that I
made.

>>> Rock musicians don't listen to their
>>> recordings on stereos like everyone else?

>> A lot of the musicians I work with try to avoid
>> listening to recordings o f themselves playing because
>> its never anything like what they hear when they play.
>> They often fear that they will sound bad because they
>> are so acutely aware of their failings as musicians.

> But you don't work with rock musicians of any
> significance.

That would be another supposition on your part. Furthermore, I see no reason
why rock musicans would be that different from musicans who play other
genres of music. In fact most of the musicans I work with are far more
flexible than that. They can play music from a number of genres and even
switch genre in the middle of a set. IME this is not unusual.


> I suspect you don't pay to much attention
> to what they say about their own music either.


That's actually more than a little insulting, and again another supposition
on your part.

> Is it
> really your position that musicians aren't listening to
> their work while recording in studio because they fear
> they suck?

It is my position that musicans don't listen to their playing as recorded
while it is being recorded because they are busy making the music that is
being recorded. After the music is recorded they often leave right away
because they have other things to do. Later on they may or may not listen to
recordings that they participated in, depending on their interest and the
time avaialble.


> Are you suggesting that they don't listen to
> and evaluate their final product before going to market
> for the same fear?

This is IME true at least part of the time. Its not like they haven't heard
the music before, just in a different form.

> I am a little bit shocked by this assertion.

It is not an assertion, it is an empirical fact.


> One need look no further than any garden
> variety documentary like the "behind the music" series to
> see how completely wrong this assertion is.

Who says that documentaries are always true and accurate representations of
how things are?

>>> they don't
>>> listen to other recording artists like everyone else?
>
>> It has often been observed that musicians don't listen
>> to musical recordings like everyone else. We hear
>> sound, they hear music. Two different worlds.

> It has often been observed that there is more police and
> ER activity during a full moon. "Observed" by police and
> ER workers no less. And yet studies show it is pure urban
> legend. that is basically my point.

That would be yet another unfounded supposition on your part.

> These anecdotal
> observations are meaningless.

If anecdotal observations are meaningless, then why have you based your
entire response on something that is even less reliable - your personal
suppositions?

> By the way, I hear music when I listen to music. Maybe you just hear
> sound.

I hear both, depending on my interest and needs at the moment.

>>> All sounds pretty far fetched.

>> It sounds far fetched to me that more people aren't
>> aware of at least som e of the items I've presented
>> above, especially how different groups sound during
>> rehearsals and actual performances.

>> Another thing - there's an old saying in live recording
>> - add 10 dB to th= e levels during rehearsal so that you
>> don't get clipping during the performance, because the
>> musicians get far more excited due to the presen= ce of
>> the audience, and simply play and sing louder. YMMV.

> Yeah and make sure there are no musicians in the
> audience. We don't want them hearing what it sounds like.


I don't see even the slightest basis for this comment. Yet another
supposition, or perhaps sarcasm which is almost never factual?

>
>>> Oh by the way, Stan Ricker
>>> plays stand up bass and Steve Hoffman players guitar.
>>> Guess those mastering engineers didn't get the memo
>>> about pretending to be musicians.
>>
>> Just because performing and mixing are two different
>> worlds doesn't mean that people can't travel between
>> them.

> They are mastering engineers. They don't mix.

That seems to disagree with more authoritative statements about Stan
Ricker's experiences such as:

http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=insights&content_id=16&pagestring=Record+Mastering,+an+interview+with+Sta n+Ricker+Part+3

"Stan Ricker has a unique combination of knowledge of music, recording, and
mastering"

Steve Hoffman has also made many comments about how certain recordings were
mixed that would only be relevant if he had some involvement in that part of
the process.

It appears that your suppositons are again baseless and perhaps even false.

[Scott[_6_]]

On Oct 20, 6:07=A0am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > On Oct 18, 6:54=3DA0am, "Arny Krueger" >
> > wrote:
> >> "Scott" > wrote in message
>
>
> >>> Solo artists never listen to other solo artists?
> >> If you haven't noticed, I hasten to point out that
> >> musical artists generally all sound different. It even
> >> seems that the better they are, the more they sound
> >> different.They can play the same notes with timing
> >> and intensity that is as close as they can make it and
> >> they still sound different.
> > Stylistically yes. But there is nothing acoustically
> > unique about them.
>
> What does acoustically unique mean?



It means what it says.


>
> > When I was in New Orleans on a flim
> > last year the music joints were widely populated by
> > fellow musicians.
>
> I didn't know that you were a professional musician.


I'm not. I was speaking of the fellow musicians of the musicians
playing live at the various venues.


>
> > I'm pretty sure those musicians were
> > hearing the same sounds I was hearing.
>
> I doubt it, given that it is impossible for two people to occupy the same
> space, and small displacements can cause large differences.


They were still the same sounds. We weren't given individual P.A.
systems. But really, if you don't get the point what is the point in
talking to you? Willful obfuscation gets us nowhere.


>
> Also, the only evidence presented is your supposition. Perhaps you should
> cut to the chase and say that you suppose that you are right and that I a=
m
> wrong and that is that. Then we can dispense with the trouble of trying t=
o
> discuss the matter in an intelligent way...


Well no, I actually do offer references that one could check if they
were inclinded to do so. I will give you links this time so you have
no excuse.




>
> > =A0I'm confident that
> > despite some protests on this forum musicians actually do
> > have a very good idea of what other musicians sound like
> > from an audience perspective
>
> Again, the only evidence presented here is your supposition. Your comment=
s
> have thus far missed the point that the musican's can't possibly hear
> themselves play from the perspective of the audience because they can't b=
e
> in two places at the same time.



It does not miss the point. My point is the repeated act of hearing
other musicians suffices in giving a musician perspective on their own
sound.


>
> >I actually do know a few musicians in this world.
>
> That would be a truism. I don't know of anybody who doesn't know a few
> musicians. If you haven't noticed, there are a lot of musicians in the
> world.


It would be a truism if you took it literally rather than as it was
intended. It's what we call an understantement. Sorry if that was lost
on you. I actually know more than "a few."


>
> > they are all avid concert goers.
>
> Since you have admitted that you only know a few musicians and you are ag=
ain
> making a supposition, it would be illogical to draw any conclusions from
> this statement.


see above for the explanation on what was meant by "a few."


>
> > I have only heard *of* one musician who actively
> > avoids listening to other artists' work. She is a famous
> > recluse.
>
> Again, I see no evidence that relates to the point that I made.

OK so you don't understnad the argument. I will concede that point.
But your failure to understand the argument does not make the point go
away. The point being musicians actually do listen to other musicians
by and large and that does give them perspective on their own sound.


>
> >>> Conductors never sit in the audience seats
> >>> during a rehearsal?
>
> >> A person would have to be pretty deaf to not hear the
> >> rather gross difference between the sound of an empty
> >> hall and a full or partially ful=3D l hall.
> > Reletively small compared to the difference one hears
> > from the podium.
>
> Again, I see no evidence that relates to the point that I made.


Really? Are you seriously unaware of the huge difference between the
sound from the podium as compared to anywhere in the audience? I guess
we will have to take that into consideration when pondering your
opinions on the subject.


>
> > It's a matter of perspective. Heck no
> > two seats in any concert hall offer exactly the same
> > sound. No two concert halls sound exactly the same. We
> > are talking about a broad shpere of sounds here. And I
> > think the idea that conductors are completely outside
> > that sphere is both absurd and down right insulting to
> > them.
>
> Again, I see no reliable hard evidence that relates to the point that I
> made.


It appears that you see what you want to see.


>
> >>> Rock musicians don't listen to their
> >>> recordings on stereos like everyone else?
> >> A lot of the musicians I work with try to avoid
> >> listening to recordings o f themselves playing because
> >> its never anything like what they hear when they play.
> >> They often fear that they will sound bad because they
> >> are so acutely aware of their failings as musicians.
> > But you don't work with rock musicians of any
> > significance.
>
> That would be another supposition on your part. Furthermore, I see no rea=
son
> why rock musicans would be that different from musicans who play other
> genres of music. In fact most of the musicans I work with are far more
> flexible than that. They can play music from a number of genres and even
> switch genre in the middle of a set. IME this is not unusual.


What does that have to do with my assertion and the evidence I pointed
you towards that supports that assertion?



>
> > I suspect you don't pay to much attention
> > to what they say about their own music either.
>
> That's actually more than a little insulting, and again another suppositi=
on
> on your part.


It's actually a very logical deduction based on your grossly
misinformed belief that rock musicians don't listen to themselves or
other rock musicians out of fear.


>
> > Is it
> > really your position that musicians aren't listening to
> > their work while recording in studio because they fear
> > they suck?
>
> It is my position that musicans don't listen to their playing as recorded
> while it is being recorded because they are busy making the music that is
> being recorded. =A0After the music is recorded they often leave right awa=
y
> because they have other things to do. Later on they may or may not listen=
to
> recordings that they participated in, depending on their interest and the
> time avaialble.

Then your position is profoundly uninformed and clearly wrong. Facts
is facts. again I would point you to that terrific series of
documentaries on the making of many classic rock albums.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behind_The_Music
You will find many a scene of musicians recording with headphones or
monitors that allow them to hear themsleves playing against what has
already been layed down. Heck, you'd be hard pressed to find any
vocalist that will record without being able to clearly hear
themselves while they record. Arny, we are talking about real pro rock
artists here. Musicians that spend an enormous amount of time and
money in the studio trying to get it just right. They *are* listening
to what they are doing.


>
> > =A0Are you suggesting that they don't listen to
> > and evaluate their final product before going to market
> > for the same fear?
>
> This is IME true at least part of the time. Its not like they haven't hea=
rd
> the music before, just in a different form.


What is your experience?


>
> > I am a little bit shocked by this assertion.
>
> It is not an assertion, it is an empirical fact.


wrong. It is, as you love to say, a supposition that is not supported
by any facts presented here by you. It's also plainly eroneous. And
you base it on "your expereience?" That being what? What commercial
rock recordings have you been an active participant in?


>
> > One need look no further than any garden
> > variety documentary like the "behind the music" series to
> > see how completely wrong this assertion is.
>
> Who says that documentaries are always true and accurate representations =
of
> how things are?


In this case I do. But, unlike you, I have actually seen them and know
what it is I am referencing. Things like behind the scene footage.
interviews with the artistst with obviously unedited questions with
direct answers.... clear and irrefutable stuff like that. but if you
want to claim that the makers of this series has conspired to
undermind your argument in this thread feel free to make that
assertion. but remember this was just an example. I can point you to a
mountain of "evidence" on the subject. I happen to be a fan and I
have, over the years, looked into the making of my favorite music.
This may come as a surprise to you but these guys actually talk
extensively about the making of their music. Something I have found
interesting and have payed attention to.




>
> >>> they don't
> >>> listen to other recording artists like everyone else?
>
> >> It has often been observed that musicians don't listen
> >> to musical recordings like everyone else. We hear
> >> sound, they hear music. Two different worlds.
> > It has often been observed that there is more police and
> > ER activity during a full moon. "Observed" by police and
> > ER workers no less. And yet studies show it is pure urban
> > legend. that is basically my point.
>
> That would be yet another unfounded supposition on your part.

No. It's actually well documented.
http://tafkac.org/medical/full_moon_fun.html


>
> > These anecdotal
> > observations are meaningless.
>
> If anecdotal observations are meaningless, then why have you based your
> entire response on something that is even less reliable - your personal
> suppositions?


I haven't. That would only describe your assertions here.
I have offered you some references that support my assertions. I can
bring agreat deal more if needed.

>
> > By the way, I hear music when I listen to music. Maybe you just hear
> > sound.
>
> I hear both, depending on my interest and needs at the moment.


I was only going by what you said.


>
> >>> All sounds pretty far fetched.
> >> It sounds far fetched to me that more people aren't
> >> aware of at least som e of the items I've presented
> >> above, especially how different groups sound during
> >> rehearsals and actual performances.
> >> Another thing - there's an old saying in live recording
> >> - add 10 dB to th=3D e levels during rehearsal so that you
> >> don't get clipping during the performance, because the
> >> musicians get far more excited due to the presen=3D ce of
> >> the audience, and simply play and sing louder. YMMV.
> > Yeah and make sure there are no musicians in the
> > audience. We don't want them hearing what it sounds like.
>
> I don't see even the slightest basis for this comment. Yet another
> supposition, or perhaps sarcasm which is almost never factual?


no Arny it was a joke relating to the absurdity of the apparently
widely held belief on RAHE that musicians lack the experience with
other musicians playing live to have any meaningful perspective on how
they sound when they play live. I hate explaining jokes.


>
>
>
> >>> Oh by the way, Stan Ricker
> >>> plays stand up bass and Steve Hoffman players guitar.
> >>> Guess those mastering engineers didn't get the memo
> >>> about pretending to be musicians.
>
> >> Just because performing and mixing are two different
> >> worlds doesn't mean that people can't travel between
> >> them.
> > They are mastering engineers. They don't mix.
>
> That seems to disagree with more authoritative statements about Stan
> Ricker's experiences such as:
>
> http://www.cardas.com/content.php?area=3Dinsights&content_id=3D16&pagestr=
....
>
> "Stan Ricker has a unique combination of knowledge of music, recording, a=
nd
> mastering"


It doesn't disgaree at all. Yes he does have "knowledge" which speaks
to my point about specialists needing a broad base to be better at
what they do. But why did you stop reading there? It goes on to say...

"Stan Ricker has a unique combination of knowledge of music,
recording, and mastering, and is one of the few true renaissance men
in audio today. Stan is a veteran LP mastering engineer who is
renowned for his development of the half-speed mastering process and
his leading role in the development of the 200g UHQR (Ultra High
Quality Recording). Stan cut many highly regarded LPs for Mobile
Fidelity Sound Lab, Crystal Clear, Telarc, Delos, Reference
Recordings, Windham Hill, Stereophile, and roughly a dozen other
labels, including recent work for Analogue Productions and AcousTech
Mastering. Stan is particularly well-known to audiophiles such as
myself who were actively purchasing high-quality LPs during the
mid-70's to mid-80's. Stan's love and knowledge of music has stood him
in good stead during his mastering career. His long experience as both
a band and orchestra conductor has trained him to hear ensemble and
timbral balance, which has proven to be exceptionally useful in
achieving mastered products of the highest caliber"

What about that clear statement on Stan's career would lead you to
believe he is actually involved in mixing? what isn't clear about the
fact that he is a mastering engineer by trade?


>
> Steve Hoffman has also made many comments about how certain recordings we=
re
> mixed that would only be relevant if he had some involvement in that part=
of
> the process.


No. he does his homework. That is just one of the reasons he is one of
the best. Again this points to the need of a broad base for a
specialist to excel. You can read about his work on his website.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/


>
> It appears that your suppositons are again baseless and perhaps even fals=
e.

It would only appear so to the willfully uninformed. I have given you
several references now it's on you to do your homework.


[ The moderators would appreciate it if everyone involved in this
thread were to pause before tapping the Send button and review
their posts for politeness. -- dsr ]

[Andrew Barss]

anthony > wrote:

: To get back to the original topic -- the sound of the remastered
: Beatles set.


Very nice review -- thanks.

Question: I love the Beatles, but mostly Sgt. Pepper onwards. I've heard
very short samples from the mono and stereo Sgt. Pepper, and liked the
mono version enough -- played on speakers -- that I'm tempted to get the
box set for just that (I prefer the stereo version, or the clips I've
heard, on headphones). How would you compare the two versions? And are
any of the other, later mono versions worth getting? (I'm aware that the
mono versions are only available as a boxed set, hence the question -- I
wouldn't hesitate to buy single CDs in mono).

-- Andy Barss

[ Excessive quotation snipped -- dsr ]

--
<o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o>
Andy Barss
Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona
Communications 114A, 626-3284
<o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o><o>

[gofab.com]

On 8 Oct 2009 22:26:51 GMT, in article >, Jenn
stated:
>
>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.


Jenn, I agree that the remasters are a significant improvement over the
original. The extent of the improvement varies with the album involved. If I had
been doing the project, I think I would have pushed a bit more in a few areas.
Perhaps a bit more tape hiss reduction. I might have made some slightly
different decisions regarding dynamics in some places. Overall, compared to what
could have been done, this was a tasteful and rather subtle exercise. On some
passages, the work is almost totally unobtrusive (save for perhaps some
additional gain). On others, it can be quite noticeable, but never jarring. An
example would be "Long Long Long", where the character of the original is most
definitely retained, and yet there are some very satisfying improvements (the
drums really punch in very dynamically; much more delicacy and air around the
acoustic guitar sounds and, on the whole, much less of an impression of "mud").

Shrill? Hardly. Lacking bass? Not on my system. Worse than the original masters?
Hard to understand that claim. I think the claim you could lay at their feet was
that perhaps there were a bit too "purist" in their approach, although I can
understand why they took that tack. Having heard suggestions of what was
possible with a bit of remixing from the Love CD, it is tantalizing to think
what a tasteful mix engineer could do with some of the material, particularly
the later material where there was less bouncing and more track isolation of
individual parts. But I can't fault what they did here as their is no lodestar
besides the original mix decisions that were made, at least on the mono
recordings, with the active participation of the Beatles.

I agree that there are other examples where remastering has made a very
significant difference. I agree on the Stones releases from a few years back.
Perhaps the most satisfying pop remastering project I've heard in recent years
was the Led Zeppelin "Mothership" collection. They did an extraordinary job on
that. The remastered "All Things Must Pass" was also sterling.