There was an article in yesterday's (London) Times about remastering,
'louder is better', and the new Led Zeppelin compilation, 'Mothership'.
It's also online, but without the usual graph comparing the dynamic range
of various versions.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/art...cle2877291.ece

"I have to make my judgments based on selling as many records as
possible. That’s my brief. So even though there might be audiophiles who
say you shouldn’t do this, well, I’m sorry, audiophiles, you’re a very
small part of the market."

--
Eiron.

In article ,
Eiron wrote:
There was an article in yesterday's (London) Times about remastering,
'louder is better', and the new Led Zeppelin compilation, 'Mothership'.
It's also online, but without the usual graph comparing the dynamic range
of various versions.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/art...cle2877291.ece

"I have to make my judgments based on selling as many records as
possible. That’s my brief. So even though there might be audiophiles who
say you shouldn’t do this, well, I’m sorry, audiophiles, you’re a very
small part of the market."

Hmm. The starting point appears to be the LPs - and comments like 'Fairly
close to the original master tape, he says, without much done to it'

If Mr Mew is in any position to say this why wasn't the comparison made
with it? But then shows his true colours 'and to make it louder, you have
to compromise on some of the detail, because there's only so much
information a CD can process' If this had been said about LP it would have
been closer to the truth - especially in terms of dynamic range.

Sad really as much of the article contains a deal of sense. I wonder if
it's the writer of the article putting his own spin on things by selective
quoting?

The other 'lie' is

'Back at Abbey Road, listening with Mew to the various versions of Messrs
Page, Plant, Jones and Bonham, one thing becomes apparent. While the vinyl
soothes the soul, they all sound pretty bloody good. But as soon as you
change formats, suggests Mew, you have to intervene. I'm trying to
second-guess what the original engineers would have wanted with these
modern facilities at their disposal. All the time you have to make
judgments.'

You don't *have* to 'intervene' when producing a CD from a master. But you
usually do when producing an LP.

--
*He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...


You don't *have* to 'intervene' when producing a CD from a master. But you
usually do when producing an LP.


Dave. Anyone who has taken part in disc and CD
mastering knows that the brief is entirely different,
particularly with regard to pop product.

In disc cutting, the objective was to cut an acetate master as
close as possible to the stereo master tape. This requires a
very high level of skill, and the results, at the hand of an
experienced cutting engineer, were remarkably good,
giving the restrictions imposed by the medium. I have
cut several hundred master lacquers - I can tell you,
it ain't easy:-)

The brief for classical and jazz CD mastering, in which I
am often involved, is still the same. The client wants
no changes. The result is usually a 1:1, an impeccable
product.

With pop CDs, the mastering stage is regarded as another
step in the production chain. Nothing can be done to
change individual elements within the mix, so attention is
turned to apparent loudness, particularly with reference
to the products issued by the competition. The first step
is the Smiley EQ curve (people like boof and tizz:-)
One soon hits a brickwall as regards peak levels,
so heavy compression and ubiquitous clipping become
the order of the day.

It is impossible to cut a lacquer master like this that will
play.

But for CD, it certainly sounds louder, and
the majority of the public seem to want this kind
of product. So that it what they are given.

Iain

"Eiron" wrote in message
...
There was an article in yesterday's (London) Times about remastering,
'louder is better', and the new Led Zeppelin compilation, 'Mothership'.
It's also online, but without the usual graph comparing the dynamic range
of various versions.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/art...cle2877291.ece

"I have to make my judgments based on selling as many records as possible.
That's my brief. So even though there might be audiophiles who say you
shouldn't do this, well, I'm sorry, audiophiles, you're a very small part
of the market."


Hi Eiron. Good that the a reputable paper like the London
Times is writing about this topic, but it really is very old news.
It has been discussed on this NG at great length.

Jim, who at first seemed to doubt my word when I told him about it,
thought the problem was something to do with incompetence.
I pointed out to him on many occasions that therecord companies
were simply giving the public what they (think they) want.
Judging by the very low numbers of returned pop CD's, this
seems to be the case.

Iain

In article i,
Iain Churches wrote:
I pointed out to him on many occasions that therecord companies
were simply giving the public what they (think they) want.
Judging by the very low numbers of returned pop CD's, this
seems to be the case.

Thin is many buy pop records based on hearing them first on the radio. And
all pop radio stations process their output heavily - in a fairly similar
manner to that done by the re-mastering boys. If something is compressed
to within an inch at mastering doing the same thing again on transmission
ain't going to make it sound much different.

--
*I don't suffer from insanity -- I'm a carrier

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
You don't *have* to 'intervene' when producing a CD from a master. But
you usually do when producing an LP.


Dave. Anyone who has taken part in disc and CD
mastering knows that the brief is entirely different,
particularly with regard to pop product.

That wasn't the point of my post. It was that the 'expert' implied CD will
necessarily sound like this - while LP doesn't.

As you seem to confirm, the opposite is true. CD can be a straightforward
dub of the master. LP may need alteration to be cut from it.

The one thing I'm not clear about is why engineers, producers and artists
sign off their recordings at the recording studio and then send them off
to be re-mastered by others. And I'm willing to bet with non of the
original team present. It's a bit like Constable sending off his paintings
to be varnished with a coloured glaze after he's finished them - and then
complaining they don't look quite the same. ;-)

--
*Acupuncture is a jab well done*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:43:44 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article i,
Iain Churches wrote:
I pointed out to him on many occasions that therecord companies
were simply giving the public what they (think they) want.
Judging by the very low numbers of returned pop CD's, this
seems to be the case.

Thin is many buy pop records based on hearing them first on the radio. And
all pop radio stations process their output heavily - in a fairly similar
manner to that done by the re-mastering boys. If something is compressed
to within an inch at mastering doing the same thing again on transmission
ain't going to make it sound much different.

I wish that were true. BBC London 94.9 is primarily a talk station,
but they try to play records as well. I'm convinced they just run them
through the speech processing limiters, because even heavily processed
pop records sound like nothing on earth. I feel like starting a major
rant about technical incompetence within the BBC, but I'm going out
for a walk instead as the sun is just coming out.

d

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
You don't *have* to 'intervene' when producing a CD from a master. But
you usually do when producing an LP.


Dave. Anyone who has taken part in disc and CD
mastering knows that the brief is entirely different,
particularly with regard to pop product.

That wasn't the point of my post. It was that the 'expert' implied CD will
necessarily sound like this - while LP doesn't.

CD will necessarily sound like this, if it is to sound
loud in the car, and on the Walkman, which most
people use. That's what people want and expect.
The level of quality expectation has fallen dramatically.
Most people listen to music in a location with a high
level of background ambience - the car or the street.
Talk to people in record shops about CDs. Ask
them about compression and clipping as I have done.
Most shrug their shoulders and say "It sounds
fine to me, especially in the car!"

I wonder if anyone actually sits down in their amchair
to listen to music anymore?

As you seem to confirm, the opposite is true. CD can be a straightforward
dub of the master. LP may need alteration to be cut from it.

The better the cutting engineer the fewer the alterations. Some were
passed on post edit (for example a dB or two in EQ or level change
at a specified point) All tapes that have passed through a cutting
room, have a card on which the cutting engineer has noted any
changes, in the event of a recut. A large percentage of the cards
that I have seen were blank except for the peak level, pitch and
depth, and of course the cutting ID and a signature.


The one thing I'm not clear about is why engineers, producers and artists
sign off their recordings at the recording studio and then send them off
to be re-mastered by others.

The reason is that the studio in which the project is recorded, or in the
case of a location project, the team which makes the recording, does not
belong to the record label. So following the final edit or mix, and
approval, the material is handed over to the client, to do with as
he/she sees fit.


And I'm willing to bet with non of the
original team present.

Then you would lose your money. Having been paid for their
part in the process, the product and its final mastering is now out of
their hands, and well and truly in the hands of the client, whose main
concern is sales and marketing.

Iain

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:43:44 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article i,
Iain Churches wrote:
I pointed out to him on many occasions that therecord companies
were simply giving the public what they (think they) want.
Judging by the very low numbers of returned pop CD's, this
seems to be the case.

Thin is many buy pop records based on hearing them first on the radio. And
all pop radio stations process their output heavily - in a fairly similar
manner to that done by the re-mastering boys. If something is compressed
to within an inch at mastering doing the same thing again on transmission
ain't going to make it sound much different.

I wish that were true. BBC London 94.9 is primarily a talk station,
but they try to play records as well. I'm convinced they just run them
through the speech processing limiters, because even heavily processed
pop records sound like nothing on earth. I feel like starting a major
rant about technical incompetence within the BBC, but I'm going out
for a walk instead as the sun is just coming out.


This situation could be turned around very quickly, if people
who were not satisfied, actually did something about it.
A return of say 100 000 CDs to a major label would
start a few questions at boardroom level. But most
punters are satisfied, and those who are not, prefer
just to grumble. Now that computer download sales
have taken off in a big way, with .mp3 becoming the
reference format, the level of expectation will fall
even further.

Iain

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 17:13:51 +0200, "Iain Churches"
wrote:


"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:43:44 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article i,
Iain Churches wrote:
I pointed out to him on many occasions that therecord companies
were simply giving the public what they (think they) want.
Judging by the very low numbers of returned pop CD's, this
seems to be the case.

Thin is many buy pop records based on hearing them first on the radio. And
all pop radio stations process their output heavily - in a fairly similar
manner to that done by the re-mastering boys. If something is compressed
to within an inch at mastering doing the same thing again on transmission
ain't going to make it sound much different.

I wish that were true. BBC London 94.9 is primarily a talk station,
but they try to play records as well. I'm convinced they just run them
through the speech processing limiters, because even heavily processed
pop records sound like nothing on earth. I feel like starting a major
rant about technical incompetence within the BBC, but I'm going out
for a walk instead as the sun is just coming out.


This situation could be turned around very quickly, if people
who were not satisfied, actually did something about it.
A return of say 100 000 CDs to a major label would
start a few questions at boardroom level. But most
punters are satisfied, and those who are not, prefer
just to grumble. Now that computer download sales
have taken off in a big way, with .mp3 becoming the
reference format, the level of expectation will fall
even further.

Iain



Don't know what you are talking about here Iain. I was complaining
about what BBC incompetence is doing to broadcast sound quality, not
about the source material.

d

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