On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:14:54 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Ok, a break from arguing about cables!

Have been having a discussion on a forum about which CDs sound better,
originals or other sets of remasters. So I did a few experiments.

Take one CD. Rip, encode to MP3 (at high quality), then run MP3Gain to
set the perceived volume to 89dB. Repeat for remasters.

Open MP3s using Nero Wave Editor, or some other piece of software that
will give you a visual representation of the track.

See what "remastering" really involves.

Check this out for butchery. This is the original track, from the 1981
CD release:

http://intranet.squirrel-net.co.uk/s...hevisitors.png

This is an earlier remaster from a 1994 box set:

http://intranet.squirrel-net.co.uk/s.../oou-tyftm.png

And this is a remaster from a 2005 box set:

http://intranet.squirrel-net.co.uk/s...ts/oou-csr.png

Note that these tracks have had ReplayGain applied. Pre-ReplayGain
they'd have been set to peak at 100%.

Listening to all 3 tracks direct from the CD (no ReplayGain) the 1994
version seems to sound better. But if you apply ReplayGain and listen to
all 3 back to back, the original sounds far better. Look at the visuals,
it isn't hard to see why.

Now this, perhaps, really is something for people to bitch about.

And so we have been, for ages. This just isn't news.

d

Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com