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

Don Pearce wrote:

Now this, perhaps, really is something for people to bitch about.
And so we have been, for ages. This just isn't news.

Well I haven't seen it. Probably cos until recently my news access was a
little sporadic, to put it mildly.

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:33:24 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Now this, perhaps, really is something for people to bitch about.
And so we have been, for ages. This just isn't news.

Well I haven't seen it. Probably cos until recently my news access was a
little sporadic, to put it mildly.

I mean the phenomenon, not the news propagation. To see the comments
you need to frequent the pro sound groups.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:

I mean the phenomenon, not the news propagation. To see the comments
you need to frequent the pro sound groups.

Well, until the government passes a law that there's now 36 hours in a
day rather than 24, I don't have time to frequent every newsgroup I'd
like to.

Anyway... what is it with "remasters" destroying the music like that? I
have a remaster of Dire Straits "Brothers In Arms", and it does actually
sound better than the original release. Ditto with Paul Simon's
"Graceland". But they're the exceptions.

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:47:49 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

I mean the phenomenon, not the news propagation. To see the comments
you need to frequent the pro sound groups.

Well, until the government passes a law that there's now 36 hours in a
day rather than 24, I don't have time to frequent every newsgroup I'd
like to.

Anyway... what is it with "remasters" destroying the music like that? I
have a remaster of Dire Straits "Brothers In Arms", and it does actually
sound better than the original release. Ditto with Paul Simon's
"Graceland". But they're the exceptions.

There you have two bands/artists who not only have a lot of artistic
integrity, but the sheer muscle to tell the studio where to get off.

For the rest, the conception is that if reasonably loud is good, then
very loud must be better. So much of the development work in DAW
software in the past few years has concentrated on maximizing the
dynamic squash on the signal while still leaving the music
recognizable. The result is what you have highlighted, and it isn't
pretty.

Radio is the problem - the record producers figure that as you are
hopping through the channels, you will stop on the one that is the
loudest. A ridiculous concept, but it is what drives the music
industry right now.

d

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

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:47:49 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

I mean the phenomenon, not the news propagation. To see the comments
you need to frequent the pro sound groups.

Well, until the government passes a law that there's now 36 hours in a
day rather than 24, I don't have time to frequent every newsgroup I'd
like to.

Anyway... what is it with "remasters" destroying the music like that? I
have a remaster of Dire Straits "Brothers In Arms", and it does actually
sound better than the original release. Ditto with Paul Simon's
"Graceland". But they're the exceptions.

There you have two bands/artists who not only have a lot of artistic
integrity, but the sheer muscle to tell the studio where to get off.

For the rest, the conception is that if reasonably loud is good, then
very loud must be better. So much of the development work in DAW
software in the past few years has concentrated on maximizing the
dynamic squash on the signal while still leaving the music
recognizable. The result is what you have highlighted, and it isn't
pretty.

Radio is the problem - the record producers figure that as you are
hopping through the channels, you will stop on the one that is the
loudest. A ridiculous concept, but it is what drives the music
industry right now.

d

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

Even more ridiculous when you think that the processor will squash the
dynamic range anyway. However, I have heard it expressed by one record
company exec I was talking to that record companies now have to squash the
CDs as kids want them to sound like they heard them on the radio. Sadly, it
is not limited to the sort of music aimed at teenagers. I have one CD-
Robert Plant, Dreamland, which has full-scale output in several places
throughout the CD, and even in the same track. Looking at it on a 'scope and
using my bit-stream analyser, it is clearly clipped several times. Clipping
for very short periods isn't particularly audible, but you get an extra few
dBs of loudness that way.

Lunacy, sheer lunacy........

S.

In article , Serge Auckland
writes

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 19:47:49 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

I mean the phenomenon, not the news propagation. To see the comments
you need to frequent the pro sound groups.

Well, until the government passes a law that there's now 36 hours in a
day rather than 24, I don't have time to frequent every newsgroup I'd
like to.

Anyway... what is it with "remasters" destroying the music like that? I
have a remaster of Dire Straits "Brothers In Arms", and it does actually
sound better than the original release. Ditto with Paul Simon's
"Graceland". But they're the exceptions.

There you have two bands/artists who not only have a lot of artistic
integrity, but the sheer muscle to tell the studio where to get off.

For the rest, the conception is that if reasonably loud is good, then
very loud must be better. So much of the development work in DAW
software in the past few years has concentrated on maximizing the
dynamic squash on the signal while still leaving the music
recognizable. The result is what you have highlighted, and it isn't
pretty.

Radio is the problem - the record producers figure that as you are
hopping through the channels, you will stop on the one that is the
loudest. A ridiculous concept, but it is what drives the music
industry right now.

d

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

Even more ridiculous when you think that the processor will squash the
dynamic range anyway. However, I have heard it expressed by one record
company exec I was talking to that record companies now have to squash the
CDs as kids want them to sound like they heard them on the radio. Sadly, it
is not limited to the sort of music aimed at teenagers. I have one CD-
Robert Plant, Dreamland, which has full-scale output in several places
throughout the CD, and even in the same track. Looking at it on a 'scope and
using my bit-stream analyser, it is clearly clipped several times. Clipping
for very short periods isn't particularly audible, but you get an extra few
dBs of loudness that way.

Lunacy, sheer lunacy........

S.



Yes.. a local station has gone loud round this way and I mean REALLY
LOUD!!! Taking this up with the programme controller of a station we
look after I said what do you think of that he replith thus.

"Yes like it sounding like that, can we have the same"?. Over my dead
body quoth I..

Buggers just don't know what dynamic range means anymore(((

And the above station has a new "digital" feed at 128 K/Bits.....
--
Tony Sayer

Don Pearce wrote:

Radio is the problem - the record producers figure that as you are
hopping through the channels, you will stop on the one that is the
loudest. A ridiculous concept, but it is what drives the music
industry right now.

Except the track that I posted the visualisations of was recorded in
1981, before such nonsense existed.

Looks like the rot started in the early 90s (the first remaster was
1994), and by last year any sense of dynamics were lost in brick-wall
limiting...

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:41:01 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Radio is the problem - the record producers figure that as you are
hopping through the channels, you will stop on the one that is the
loudest. A ridiculous concept, but it is what drives the music
industry right now.

Except the track that I posted the visualisations of was recorded in
1981, before such nonsense existed.

Looks like the rot started in the early 90s (the first remaster was
1994), and by last year any sense of dynamics were lost in brick-wall
limiting...

Errr..... exactly.

d

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

On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 20:41:01 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

Radio is the problem - the record producers figure that as you are
hopping through the channels, you will stop on the one that is the
loudest. A ridiculous concept, but it is what drives the music
industry right now.

Except the track that I posted the visualisations of was recorded in
1981, before such nonsense existed.

Looks like the rot started in the early 90s (the first remaster was
1994), and by last year any sense of dynamics were lost in brick-wall
limiting...

Actually, it started *way* back in the '50s, when radio stations
discovered compression, and a little ten kilowatt local radio station
could sound like the national networks on passing car radios, just by
cranking up the modulation.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering