Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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. |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
"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. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
"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. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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 |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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? |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
"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. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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 |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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 |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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 |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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. |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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 |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
UC wrote:
: Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded : WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and : it's HORRID! : Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible! That's 180 degrees off everything I've read (20+ detailed reviews) of the new Beatles remasters. Are you sure there isn't something wrong with your system? Here's a representative discussion, with a lot of discussion of the 1987 cs. 2009 versions of Sg. Pepper: http://www.tonepublications.com/musi...ereo-and-mono/ -- Andy Barss |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
"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... |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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. |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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. |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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! |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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. |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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 |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
"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 |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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 |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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. |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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. |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
"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... ;-) |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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 |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
|
#27
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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 |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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 |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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 |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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. |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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 |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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. |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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 |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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 |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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. |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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. |
#39
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
On 14 Oct 2009 02:31:10 GMT, Dick Pierce
wrote: There is nothing intrinsic whatsoever about "the band being involved" that would ensure ANY specifc result. I have heard the product of a number of bands and conductors and performers acting as their own mastering engineer that resulted in truly dreadful results, and if not for the intervention of a real live mastering engineer, would have been a total sonic catastrophe. Mastering engineers have the good sense of not pretending they are musicians. The music world would be a lot better of if musicians would stop pretending they knew anything about mastering. They don't. ....particularly when, in this instance, Phil Collins is reported to have pretty bad hearing problems! ( eg see http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/...king_fans_deaf) --- Rob Tweed Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd Registered in England: No 3220901 Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com |
#40
Posted to rec.audio.high-end
|
|||
|
|||
Remasters
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 |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Beatles Remasters | Pro Audio | |||
Beatles remasters | Audio Opinions | |||
Dynamic range of recent remasters from vinyl | Pro Audio | |||
Dynamic range of recent remasters from vinyl | Tech | |||
Beatles remasters: the engineer? | Pro Audio |