Have now come to the conclusion that the word "remastered" should really
be pronounced "*******ised"...

In a posting a while back I think I said that the remaster of Paul
Simon's "Graceland" hadn't been subjected to the loudness wars...

Bzzzzzt! Wrong answer! The MP3s I had of this album had been ripped from
the original release, not the remaster I bought a couple of years ago.

Look and weep...

2004 re*******:

http://intranet.squirrel-net.co.uk/i...ubble-2004.png

1986 release:

http://intranet.squirrel-net.co.uk/i...ubble-1986.png

Volume levelled with ReplayGain to 89dB before doing a volume plot.

That would explain why the MP3s I had (even at 192 CBR) sounded better
than the CD. I've since bought the non-remastered CD off Amazon
Marketplace (along with original releases of Billy Joel's "An Innocent
Man" and Dire Straits "Brothers In Arms").

Where does this "louder is better" mentality come from?!? If it sounds
better "loud" then turn up the volume ffs!

Mentioned this to a friend of mine - not a techie but likes his music,
has a reasonably good setup (Yamaha AV amp and Gale speakers, good old
Richer Sounds!). Showed him the plots above and his response (after
explaining why they do this) was "yes... but if I want it louder I just
do this..." and made a gesture of turning up a volume knob.

And that's a non-techie non-audiophile type. He's a builder by trade and
tends to listen to metal and heavy rock... and even he's noticed how bad
modern CDs sound.

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

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

Glenn Richards wrote:

Have now come to the conclusion that the word "remastered" should really
be pronounced "*******ised"...

In a posting a while back I think I said that the remaster of Paul
Simon's "Graceland" hadn't been subjected to the loudness wars...

Bzzzzzt! Wrong answer! The MP3s I had of this album had been ripped from
the original release, not the remaster I bought a couple of years ago.

Look and weep...

2004 re*******:

http://intranet.squirrel-net.co.uk/i...ubble-2004.png

1986 release:

http://intranet.squirrel-net.co.uk/i...ubble-1986.png

Too true in many cases.

But more importantly, which one is yours?
http://intranet.squirrel-net.co.uk/images/IMG_0369.jpg
http://intranet.squirrel-net.co.uk/images/a3_2.jpg

--
Eiron.

Eiron wrote:

But more importantly, which one is yours?

Both... :-S

A3 - hit standing water, spun, hit lorry parked in layby (which is what
took the back end off) and went backwards through a hedge. I walked away
from it. Had a bit of a bruise on my shoulder where the seat belt
pre-tensioner had fired and my ear hurt from the side airbag going off
but otherwise ok.

A4 Quattro - was having a really bad day, had a run-in with the ex and
should have been sitting at home on the wrong end of a crate of beer.
Coming up to a T-junction on the side road... missed the end of the road
and went flying across the junction into the hedge opposite. At about
60-70mph. Walked away without a scratch. Car was repairable but would
have cost more to fix than I paid for it.

Now have a 56-plate A4 2.0 TDI Quattro. Haven't pranged that one yet!
crosses fingers and taps on desk

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

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 18:23:10 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Have now come to the conclusion that the word "remastered" should really
be pronounced "*******ised"...

In a posting a while back I think I said that the remaster of Paul
Simon's "Graceland" hadn't been subjected to the loudness wars...

Bzzzzzt! Wrong answer! The MP3s I had of this album had been ripped from
the original release, not the remaster I bought a couple of years ago.

Look and weep...

2004 re*******:

http://intranet.squirrel-net.co.uk/i...ubble-2004.png

1986 release:

http://intranet.squirrel-net.co.uk/i...ubble-1986.png

Volume levelled with ReplayGain to 89dB before doing a volume plot.

That would explain why the MP3s I had (even at 192 CBR) sounded better
than the CD. I've since bought the non-remastered CD off Amazon
Marketplace (along with original releases of Billy Joel's "An Innocent
Man" and Dire Straits "Brothers In Arms").

Where does this "louder is better" mentality come from?!? If it sounds
better "loud" then turn up the volume ffs!

Mentioned this to a friend of mine - not a techie but likes his music,
has a reasonably good setup (Yamaha AV amp and Gale speakers, good old
Richer Sounds!). Showed him the plots above and his response (after
explaining why they do this) was "yes... but if I want it louder I just
do this..." and made a gesture of turning up a volume knob.

And that's a non-techie non-audiophile type. He's a builder by trade and
tends to listen to metal and heavy rock... and even he's noticed how bad
modern CDs sound.

It actually looks like the original CD was mastered with more level
compression than the vinyl - which is here. Very odd - may be just the
way the different DAW programmes present the horizontal scale that
causes this, though.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/bubblevinyl.gif

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:

It actually looks like the original CD was mastered with more level
compression than the vinyl - which is here. Very odd - may be just
the way the different DAW programmes present the horizontal scale
that causes this, though.

Looks like it's just displayed differently. The spikes at the beginning
of the track hit almost full scale, just like on the CD.

Always thought the toms on the intro to that track didn't have quite the
same impact as I'd remembered from 1986 (although I was only 8 when it
came out!) - now I can see why!

Right, going to take the non-remastered CD and play it on my Arcam kit
now. :-)

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

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 19:37:17 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

It actually looks like the original CD was mastered with more level
compression than the vinyl - which is here. Very odd - may be just
the way the different DAW programmes present the horizontal scale
that causes this, though.

Looks like it's just displayed differently. The spikes at the beginning
of the track hit almost full scale, just like on the CD.

That's because I set them at that level. What does seem to be
different is the level of the "solid" chunk - it seems to be lower on
the vinyl, indicating that maybe the dynamic range is greater.

Always thought the toms on the intro to that track didn't have quite the
same impact as I'd remembered from 1986 (although I was only 8 when it
came out!) - now I can see why!

I'm actually a little disappointed in those drum beats - they lack the
"whack" I would like to hear from them, and maybe they are victims of
vinyl mastering in the bass department. I'd like to compare to the CD
- do you think you could post those opening bars somewhere I could get
at them so I can see how they sound? All I own is the vinyl.

Right, going to take the non-remastered CD and play it on my Arcam kit
now. :-)

Just listening to the whole thing again myself right now - what a
musician (and poet). Talk about value for money in lyrics - only
rappers pile more words into a song.

d

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

Don Pearce wrote:

That's because I set them at that level. What does seem to be
different is the level of the "solid" chunk - it seems to be lower on
the vinyl, indicating that maybe the dynamic range is greater.

Probably just the way it's displayed, scaling on the plot etc.

I'm actually a little disappointed in those drum beats - they lack the
"whack" I would like to hear from them, and maybe they are victims of
vinyl mastering in the bass department. I'd like to compare to the CD
- do you think you could post those opening bars somewhere I could get
at them so I can see how they sound? All I own is the vinyl.

Could be. Have a listen to this:

http://intranet.squirrel-net.co.uk/mp3/bubble-intro.mp3

741KB VBR, first few seconds of that track. Fades just before the vocals
start.

Just listening to the whole thing again myself right now - what a
musician (and poet). Talk about value for money in lyrics - only
rappers pile more words into a song.

Hell yeah. Graceland was always one of my favourite albums. Also
recently bought "Still Crazy After All These Years" - 50 Ways To Leave
Your Lover is a masterpiece.

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

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:08:29 +0000, Glenn Richards
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:

That's because I set them at that level. What does seem to be
different is the level of the "solid" chunk - it seems to be lower on
the vinyl, indicating that maybe the dynamic range is greater.

Probably just the way it's displayed, scaling on the plot etc.

I'm actually a little disappointed in those drum beats - they lack the
"whack" I would like to hear from them, and maybe they are victims of
vinyl mastering in the bass department. I'd like to compare to the CD
- do you think you could post those opening bars somewhere I could get
at them so I can see how they sound? All I own is the vinyl.

Could be. Have a listen to this:

http://intranet.squirrel-net.co.uk/mp3/bubble-intro.mp3

741KB VBR, first few seconds of that track. Fades just before the vocals
start.

Yup - just as I suspected, there's a few dBs of bass cut on the vinyl
compared to the CD and it makes all the difference. Shame they
couldn't quite do the full monty on the vinyl, but that's physics for
you.

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

In article ,
Glenn Richards wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

It actually looks like the original CD was mastered with more level
compression than the vinyl - which is here. Very odd - may be just
the way the different DAW programmes present the horizontal scale
that causes this, though.

Looks like it's just displayed differently. The spikes at the beginning
of the track hit almost full scale, just like on the CD.

FWIW When I was doing some analysis of CD tracks I tried various ways to
produce statistics for the dynamics. I came to the conclusion that the most
revealing method was to avoid 'rms' or 'mean' powers. The problem being
that these could easily fail to indicate brief peaks which might reach
0dBFS.

I therefore used the method of breaking the track into 100 millsecond
chunks, finding the peak sample magnitudes (left and right) in each chunk,
then doing the statistics on the resulting series of peak values. This
makes it much easier to spot excessive compression leading to clipping.

The programs I used only run under RO, not Mac or Windows. But Keith Howard
of HFN has done a Windows version which should appear on his
audiosignal.co.uk website in due course.

Article on this in the current (cover dated December) issue of HFN. Note
that the comment at the end of the article regarding the programs is
incorrect!

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 10:12:22 +0000 (GMT), Jim Lesurf
wrote:

In article ,
Glenn Richards wrote:
Don Pearce wrote:

It actually looks like the original CD was mastered with more level
compression than the vinyl - which is here. Very odd - may be just
the way the different DAW programmes present the horizontal scale
that causes this, though.

Looks like it's just displayed differently. The spikes at the beginning
of the track hit almost full scale, just like on the CD.

FWIW When I was doing some analysis of CD tracks I tried various ways to
produce statistics for the dynamics. I came to the conclusion that the most
revealing method was to avoid 'rms' or 'mean' powers. The problem being
that these could easily fail to indicate brief peaks which might reach
0dBFS.

I therefore used the method of breaking the track into 100 millsecond
chunks, finding the peak sample magnitudes (left and right) in each chunk,
then doing the statistics on the resulting series of peak values. This
makes it much easier to spot excessive compression leading to clipping.

The programs I used only run under RO, not Mac or Windows. But Keith Howard
of HFN has done a Windows version which should appear on his
audiosignal.co.uk website in due course.

Article on this in the current (cover dated December) issue of HFN. Note
that the comment at the end of the article regarding the programs is
incorrect!

Slainte,

Jim

Jim, Adobe Audition does its stats in a way that appears to be
somewhat similar, although the default window is 50mS rather than 100.
The output data looks like this:

http://81.174.169.10/odds/stats.gif

And a power histogram like this:

http://81.174.169.10/odds/hist.gif

I don't know what the internal maths is like, but I'm sure I could
make a pretty good guess. Would that be the kind of thing you get from
your programme?

d

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