Best EQ settings for bright 80's CDs?

I was listening to a-ha's album, Scoundrel Days. Original Warner US CD (9 25501-2). And the Flac files from it.

Well, it is one those bright CDs from the 1980s (I think you have heard of bright early CDs). When listening to it with my stereo system, I just put the Treble control down to -5db on the Onkyo receiver. It sounds great. However, when listening to the Flac files on Foobar2000, I need to adjust the built-in graphic equalizer. I do it like this:

-4db -4db -4db -4db -4db
5kHz 7kHz 10kHz 14kHz 20kHz

Everything else is flat.

Would that be a good setting for a "bright" 80's CD? The equivalent of the Treble knob from my receiver?

It sounds very good with headphones but I don't know if I lowering too much of the 5kHz frequency?

 

The title track is pretty much the only song I have issues with on my old US DADC, when Morten is belting out that chorus it can get quite harsh.
How does one rip via foobar adding a re-eq?

 

I can't claim to speak with real authority here, but I believe the brightness range is generally considered to be, roughly, from 2 kHz to 4 kHz. Your current setup might be diminishing air and sparkle in the highest octaves while leaving alone the offending frequencies in the brightness range. Might be worth a try.
-Bob

 

Indeed. Sliding the other controls down is prolly making your music sound muffled.

 

True, many 80's albums were mixed and mastered very bright, ie: Abba, 80's Yes, Asia, Aha, 80's Heart albums, etc.) Add to that some early 80's CD's were pre-emphasized to help lower the early DA converter aliasing distortion. (or digital distortion of some kind) The early CD players detect pre-emphasis discs, and apply de-emphasis for proper playback. I suspect some current CD players, and maybe computer CD drives do not recognize these discs, so they play back extra bright. I recall having several early CD's that played back too bright to bear, Elvis Golden records vol 1 (I returned the CD) Fleetwood Mac Rumors (Warner early Japan) Michael Jackson: Off The Wall (early Japan) .. many others.

There is a discussion on this forum on playback EQ for pre-emphasized CD's:
CD/DAT with pre-emphasis: how to de-emphasize correctly? »

Here is a list of pre-emphasis CD's according to one site:
Pre-emphasis (release list) - cdHistory »

 

I changed it to just those frequencies, and yes, I think I'm hearing more air. And the cymbals were lacking (I had noticed this before), now they're pretty fine. It was a real mess what I was doing

At first, I didn't like the sound too much, but it's getting better in my ears. I hope those are the right frequencies to adjust, though? (I don't actually trust my ears). It is easier with just the Treble knob from the receiver...

 

I don't think this is a case of pre-emphasis. The CD is not on the Pre-emphasis database that's on the internet. And it just needed a little EQ, not a full de-emphasis curve. I think it's a problem with the, I don't know... "digital transfer" maybe? The analog-to-digital conversion, using an LP cutting tape, etc... many early CDs have this problem. Here is some info: Why do older CDs tend to have a "colder," harsh sound. »

 

Many lp's that had a simultaneous cd release may carry it also, Scoundrel Days on lp EQ wise sounds the same. The Outfield Bangin', Asia Alpha, Howard Jones- Dream Into Action etc...
I think it's more of the way it was recorded and the EQ choices made at the time
Correct-None of A-ha's catalog has pre-emphasis

 

I suspect that a lot of new digital recordings that come out in the 80's are in fact bright on purpose.

As good as 24 track tape could sound, it was always tough to get the high end really emphasized.

For an artist or producer who really like the high end, didital recordings made it easier to get there.

They may have also used the same eq curves on cd that they used on vinyl or cassettes, and that would definitely give you a compartively brighter sound.

 

I once read an anecdote from a recording engineer who claimed that the reason why some '80s productions are bright is because, during the analogue days, engineers would emphasise the treble because tape and the subsequent vinyl weren't very good at preserving treble, so they emphasised it in the mix. When they transitioned over to digital, the engineers didn't realise that the treble boost was no longer necessary but it wasn't until they started hearing their CDs (that had preserved the treble all the way through the mixing, mastering, and manufacturing stage) that they realised the boost was unnecessary.

I'd be reluctant to use a tone control or a "fix-all" EQ tweak because it isn't going to apply equally to all recordings. Additionally, some recordings are supposed to sound bright.

 

They usually are , but feel free to experiment, and ALWAYS trust your ears; it's them you have to please, not another people's textbook ideas. Of course if it's just easier to do with the treble knob on your receiver and if you dig the result, by all means continue to do it in that way (I take it you don't have an equalizer in your rig ?)

This one album would be unlistenable to me without my equalizer, mids/lower treble are so jagged you could cut yourself with :

imag

Can anyone tell me if there's any of those pre-emphasis things going about it or something ?!

 

Not on that title Wax
Pre-emphasis for ELO exists on some Discovery and all Secret Messages pre re-masters except for the Japan 1990 CSCS 6036
Interesting, Greatest Hits is only ELO title I skipped on compact disc, maybe a good thing

 

Thanx ! My 8-track cartridge of this title used to sound very good, albeit somewhat muffled. The CD is a big disappointment.

THIS one (first press) exhibits the same problem, and the guy on the cover is doing exactly what I did upon first listen :

 

I remember you stating some grief on Pyramid, I have to revisit this title. The lp was mastered by Chris Blair, that one needs a re-visit also

 

I find the offending frequencies are much higher, usually around 10kHz. Use a parametric EQ to slightly tame the octave.

The main reasons 80s music was brightened up is because

1) Aesthetics. This was just the sound of the times, along with other production features such as gated drums and excessive reverb.

2) It was the era of music videos. The sound had to cut through tiny 3" mono speakers that was still prevalent on TV sets.

3) The second reason listed above led to common mastering practices, just like brickwalling is today.

The reason we know about the third is because of the many times Steve Hoffman has posted here about how, when he remastered an 80s album, or something like Fleetwood Mac's "Rumours", he had to pull back on the EQ. In the case of 80s albums, there are often notes on the tape box about what to boost, which accounted for the sound of the original releases. IIRC, in some cases, as with the Fleetwood Mac album, it was recorded and released in 1976, and the original LP sounded great without the EQ boosts. But, over time, especially in the CD era, the highs were gradually boosted by each successive mastering engineer per tape box notes. Hoffman undid all that damage when he did the vinyl several years ago. If you do a search, you can probably find all of this information on the forum.

Similar EQ circumstances were with the Billy Idol "Rebel Yell", and Yes's "90125" albums.

 

Well i cant attest to what "Steve" did with Rumors, but i do know that the top end was pretty compromised because they wore out the original 24 track master, and maybe several safety masters. I forget exactly how the story went, but theres a good book out there by Ken Callait ( i think thats the spelling) that tells a story from a co engineer/producer perspective.

As said earlier, you could scub the top end off tape recordings easily back in the day by way to many passes over ther heads. Another reason to love digital, no?

The top end of a great parametric EQ was often a life saver in these instances.

 

This is exactely what happened with Phil Collins No Jacket Required and specially But Seriously, the original masterings were true ear-bleeders with too much treble, but the Mr. Hoffman remasters from 2011 and 2012 corrected this and sound wonderful.

 

-3db @ 3Khz through 5Khz.

 

The way that I think it went is that they had overdubbed so much that the multrack tape started to shed oxide and they lost high frequencies. But, they had a safety copy of the basic tracks. So, to save what they had done up to that point, they found a guy at ABC Records who could synch the new vocals to the backing tracks on the safety. The reason it was such a laborious task is because they had no SMPTE time-code on the tape.

 

Interestingly was reading a Neil Dorfsman interview that mentioned 80's digital recording techniques at the time.He seemed to realize (unlike a lot of other prodcuers at the time) that you didn't need to add extra top-end in the way you had to with analogue recording.

"We were working on Love Over Gold at the Power Station, and we spent a really long time getting the piano sound for a song called 'Private Investigations'. We were so impressed with the result that we played it back several times for people to hear, but every time we played it back the sound lost something. I can recall the expression on Mark's face: dismay and a look of 'We've got to do something about this. The sound is going to wear out.' It was at that point the lightbulb went on in his head and in my head that we had to work in another way, and digital seemed to be the answer."

But was it the answer? After all, the sound of those early 16-bit digital machines was nothing compared to that of the current generation, and neither was the reliability. "I did Bob Dylan's Infidels record [1983] on [an early digital] machine, and it was a nightmare," Dorfsman confirms. "You couldn't edit, you couldn't really do anything. All you could do was record, and sometimes not even that. The converters would fail, error correction would be audible and things were generally weird. However, the Sony 24-track that we used for the entire Brothers In Arms album was a different story. I loved it from the very beginning, I thought it was great.

"I'd never liked the way analogue tape changed the sound — I was always disappointed with what was played back right after recording. I didn't like the way it changed the bottom end and softened things. A lot of people do like that, but I never did. And when people asked me, after Brothers In Arms came out, whether I'd changed my miking technique or style of recording to accommodate digital, I told them I'd done exactly the same things that I'd done with analogue, but without having to worry about adding extra top end because it would degenerate."

 

Are you talking about the ones done by Barry Diament? I have his NJR and I think it sounds great on all systems. No high treble at all.

 

I'm glad you mentioned this because the treble boost engineers gave the tape was the attempt to cut the hiss, and to overcome the problems inherent in the mixing process.

 

I have the Arista ARCD 8225 version on CD. Discogs says it was released 1990. Rateyourmusic says 1987. I'm listening to it now. I got half-way through and had to take the headphones off and rest my ears. This is probably not the same mastering as the first press version. But there's still something wrong with it. There's a bright edge and weirdness, but it doesn't sound like it's the sort of thing that can be removed with EQ.

 

So early digital (sometimes) sounds bad because analogue?

 

1998 Arista/BMG728 here. Removed ? No way. Tamed, maybe.