davewantsmoore Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 newbie question? are there websites out there dedicated to discussing various pressings / masterings / releases of popular music. as my system / collection grows, I'd like to know if what I'm listening to is the best version available -> and if not, then find out what I should be looking for. (I'm a numbers guy -> so I'm very interested to see these graphs. Keep em coming everyone) 1
mondie Posted September 6, 2009 Author Posted September 6, 2009 Hi Dave, Good question - there sure is www.stevehoffman.tv These guys dissect each release until there is nothing left to say about the best pressing down to the plant/stamper/year and time of day (not really!) has been identified. Be warned, its a very addictive forum for music lovers. Cheers, mondie
Sentient Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Great thread Mondie. I have a reasonable collection of early 80's cd's , not 1 of them is a "target" cd - although I have a number of cd's printed in Germany and West Germany. I dont have any duplicate titles. But out of curiosity, I downloaded Audacity and had a look at 2 songs from the same band but from different era's. 1) Van Halen - 1984 - Jump ('83) 2) Van Halen - VH III - Without You ('98) It looks like the above track could have been mastered with a larger dynamic range. But better than .............. I was abit of a sceptic about this, but this was the first comparison I tried between early 80's and late 90's cd's. Enlightening !!!
Sentient Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Heres what Fleetwood Mac's - Tusk looks like on one of their best of albums Drizt, I have Fleetwood Mac's Greatest Hits, which was pressed in Germany and the release date on the cover is 1988. I did an Audacity check on Tusk from that CD, and this is what I got......
GorgeousGeorge Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 great thread Mondie, Ive been rummaging through my old discs......not sure i was a real early adopter, I purchased my first cd player in 88, i saved my sunday paper round money for a year and bought a sony midi system ($500) and a separate Denon cd player for $500 on sale(i still have it too), i loved the sound, im pretty sure the first cd purchased was Back in Black closely followed by Brothers in Arms......which annoyingly i cant find in my collection.....i have a vague memory i lent it to someone. the Back in Black album got snapped accidentally sometime ago. I do have one of the swirly ones made in Germany of Dire Straits self titled and an early Let there be Rock like the one in your pictures. I also have a copy of Woodface Crowded House pressed in Japan....not sure about this one? i can see some hours being lost here. i shall continue my search.... Cheers GG
mondie Posted September 6, 2009 Author Posted September 6, 2009 Hi GG, Those early orange swirl DS CD's have the same mastering as the Target's, they are just easier to track down. 1) Van Halen - 1984 - Jump ('83) 2) Van Halen - VH III - Without You ('98) It looks like the above track could have been mastered with a larger dynamic range. Thanks for posting the plots, they confirm what we all hear and suspect is happening. l am not sure if this could have been mastered for more dynamic range without sacrificing other information off the mix to stick within the CD bandwidth available. Not sure on that but l suspect that's the case. Cheers, mondie
Craigandkim Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Not sure if anyone has mentioned earlier, it but it seems we are discussing the "loudness wars" of remastered CD's? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war http://musicmachinery.com/2009/03/23/the-loudness-war/ http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/17777619/the_death_of_high_fidelity/print etc etc
davidsss Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Wow Ozmillsy, that Tusk you have looks completely different to Drizt's version. The record companies have a lot to answer for. DS
mondie Posted September 6, 2009 Author Posted September 6, 2009 Not sure if anyone has mentioned earlier, it but it seems we are discussing the "loudness wars" of remastered CD's? Essentially that's where its at, but l think as much as people have been hearing about the LW for the past few years they are still surprised when they go back and listen to original early masters.
adamp Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Though amusingly enough, purchased new, the CDs based upon the older masters are often $5 or so cheaper than the 'New! Remastered!' versions where the only remastering going on appears to have been to run it through a noise filter and compress the dynamic range to hell. For newly released albums, unfortunately we're out of luck, though the LP versions at least often manage to avoid this horrid compression.
Sentient Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 For newly released albums, unfortunately we're out of luck, though the LP versions at least often manage to avoid this horrid compression.Reading through the above wiki link, apparently it occurs on LP's aswell - but not to the same extent. I found the following quote very interesting..... The practice of focusing on loudness in mastering can be traced back to the introduction of the compact disc itself but also existed to some extent when vinyl was the primary released recording medium and when 7" singles were played on jukebox machines in clubs and bars. Jukeboxes were often set to a pre-determined level by the bar owner, yet any record that was mastered "hotter" than the others before or after it would gain the attention of the crowd. The song would stand out. Also many record companies would print compilation records, and when artists and producers found their song was quieter than others on the compilation, they would insist that their song be remastered to be competitive. Also, many Motown records pushed the limits of how loud records could be made, and record labels there were "notorious for cutting some of the hottest 45s in the industry."[2] However, because of the limitations of the vinyl format, loudness and compression on a released recording were restricted in order to make the physical medium playable—restrictions which do not exist on digital media such as CDs
Sentient Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Wow Ozmillsy, that Tusk you have looks completely different to Drizt's version. The record companies have a lot to answer for. I have to be honest, I'm pretty peeved about this. Out of curiosity, I pulled out a current release CD, Day & Age by The Killers. I did an Audacity check on Spaceman. I didnt find any clipping, but fark me, it's compressed to hell. Look at this.....
Sentient Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 Going back to the topic of the thread. At lunchtime today, I'm heading down to a second hand music store, in search of some targets.
Grizzly Posted September 7, 2009 Posted September 7, 2009 I have to be honest, I'm pretty peeved about this. Out of curiosity, I pulled out a current release CD, Day & Age by The Killers. I did an Audacity check on Spaceman. I didnt find any clipping, but fark me, it's compressed to hell. Look at this..... Those engineers need to be redeployed as gardeners or barbers. Clip, clip, clip.... Going back to the topic of the thread. At lunchtime today, I'm heading down to a second hand music store, in search of some targets. You and me both!! 1
Rural Rat Posted September 7, 2009 Posted September 7, 2009 Found another one in the drawer. John Cougar Mellencamp-Scarecrow. One of the "Atomics". Might have to work up to this one, not a big fan. Not real sure what its doing here(!)
Sentient Posted September 7, 2009 Posted September 7, 2009 We should do a name and shame list of current releases, that are severly compressed and/or distorted/clipped. Problem is, it appears the list would be too long.
davewantsmoore Posted September 7, 2009 Posted September 7, 2009 We should do a name and shame list of current releases, that are severly compressed and/or distorted/clipped. Problem is, it appears the list would be too long. That's what I'm looking for. A list to avoid, and a list to hunt. The sites I've found so far are forum based, and it's very time consuming to wade through all the inane-drivel, and find actual facts. 1
Adam Posted September 7, 2009 Posted September 7, 2009 That's what I'm looking for. A list to avoid, and a list to hunt.The sites I've found so far are forum based, and it's very time consuming to wade through all the inane-drivel, and find actual facts. There is quite a good thread on Hydrogen Audio (without much crap at all): http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=27691
Sentient Posted September 7, 2009 Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) l am not sure if this could have been mastered for more dynamic range without sacrificing other information off the mix to stick within the CD bandwidth available. Not sure on that but l suspect that's the case. I dont know about that Mondie. I'd like to know what the mastering considerations are. Standard PCM doesnt use any form of (data) compression. So, from a data perspective, 1 minute of low level information or silence uses the same amount of data as 1 minute of 96db noise. On the cd in question, Van Halen 1984, there are only 9 tracks totalling approx 337 megabytes. But the size is governed by the total minutes recorded, not the loudness of each recording. It's quite possible that some early recordings are simply conservative, and not utilising the full dynamic range on offer. I'd be interested to see whether your "target" pressing of the same track, looks the same or is different? This might demonstrate the difference of 1 pressing or master, over another (maybe? I'm sure there are plenty of other steps in the mastering process that contributes to the end result). Edited September 7, 2009 by ozmillsy
davewantsmoore Posted September 7, 2009 Posted September 7, 2009 (edited) There is quite a good thread on Hydrogen Audio (without much crap at all):http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=27691 Thanks. I'm quite new to this, so am yet to find all the good audio sites. I dont know about that Mondie. I'd like to know what the mastering considerations are. Standard PCM doesnt use any form of (data) compression. So, from a data perspective, 1 minute of low level information or silence uses the same amount of data as 1 minute of 96db noise. I think you confused data compression vs the 'compression' in available dynamic range caused by making all sounds loud. Edited September 7, 2009 by davewantsmoore 1
Rural Rat Posted September 7, 2009 Posted September 7, 2009 Found another one in the drawer.John Cougar Mellencamp-Scarecrow. One of the "Atomics". Might have to work up to this one, not a big fan. Not real sure what its doing here(!) Played a couple of tracks off this one. Whilst not really to my tastes there is no doubting the quality.
Sentient Posted September 7, 2009 Posted September 7, 2009 I think you confused data compression vs the 'compression' in available dynamic range caused by making all sounds loud. No, thats why I stated data compression in my comments. When we talk about bandwidth, I believe we are referring to available range. For redbook pcm it is 0-96db. Mastering is done within this range, and I was alluding to loud and soft masters, using the same amount of digital data. I'm really not sure why you'd want to do a digital master where the top of the peaks are noticably softer. But I'd like to hear the logic - not sure bandwidth is the right answer??
GorgeousGeorge Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 These checks your doing of the discs, how is it done?? id like to check some of mine for compression. Is there a free program to use or specialized equipment? Cheers GG
Sentient Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 These checks your doing of the discs, how is it done?? id like to check some of mine for compression. Is there a free program to use or specialized equipment? Earlier in the thread, Drizt suggested Audacity, which is some free software downloadable from-> http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ To use it, I have been using EAC to rip a track from the relevant cd to WAV. And then I "open" the WAV track in Audacity, and the waveform analysis pops up. It'd be nicer if you can just analyse a track directly on the cd, but I couldnt get Audacity to do this for me. [shrugs] If you already have flac rips, Audacity will open those files and analyse them.
GorgeousGeorge Posted September 8, 2009 Posted September 8, 2009 Earlier in the thread, Drizt suggested Audacity, which is some free software downloadable from-> http://audacity.sourceforge.net/To use it, I have been using EAC to rip a track from the relevant cd to WAV. And then I "open" the WAV track in Audacity, and the waveform analysis pops up. It'd be nicer if you can just analyse a track directly on the cd, but I couldnt get Audacity to do this for me. [shrugs] If you already have flac rips, Audacity will open those files and analyse them. thanks for that....i must have missed that link, I shall check it out:cool:
Recommended Posts