"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
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


Glenn. I am frequently involved in CD mastering sessions,
both as a consultant, and as a recoring engineer.
The whole concept of mastering, as opposed to vinyl
mastering is totally different.

Originally, mastering was the process of transferring the
master recording to the commercial medium/format,
and the art was to make the end result as close as
possible to the original. In the case of lacquer masters
for vinyl production this was incredibly skilled work.
Any fool could make it sound different:-)

The CD mastering session, is regarded as an
extension of the recording process, so that,
with the exception of classical music there is
rarely an attempt to make the CD match the
production master. "Improvements"are usually
made. There are significant pressures to make
tracks as loud as possible, for the "benefit"
of radio and in-car listeners.

"Smiley EQ" (a rough equivalent of the old
"loudness" contour) is frequently used, plus
heavy compression and brick wall limiting.

Those who listen to the product on high end
systems have to suffer the consequencies.

Despite the fact that this matter is often discussed,
record companies receive very few complaints
about the mastering quality of their products-
far less than in the vinyl days. Most people
these days are happy with the mediocre.
This is regrettable, now that finally we
have the chance to take advantage of wide
FR, extended SNR, low distortion which
vinyl struggled so valiantly to offer.

A comparison of a recording issued on
vinyl and then re-issued on CD is often quite
an eye opener.

The only way this will be resolved, is if the
record buying public make their dissatisfaction
known to the record companies,and audio mags.
But while the majority are happy to sit on their
backsides eating their pizzas and tapping
their feet to Shania Twain on their mid-fi
systems, nothing will be done.

Iain