Chicago "Call On Me" Mastering Comparison

I've kvetched at length about the mastering on the Chicago Quadio BD set. Now you can judge for yourself. I've put four different masterings of the beginning of "Call On Me" here:

Call On Me comparisons

Caveats:

**the filenames identify the source; there's no attempt here at a blind test.
**I have done nothing with the sampling rate or bit rate or dynamic range, no EQ, no level-matching, nothing. Three sources are redbook (Gastwirt, Wilder, Donnelly) and one is hi-res (BD from Quadio set).

What do you think?

 

Wilder and Gastwirt were close...but Wilder's had that touch of fullness Gastwirt's was missing, IMO. Creamy. And that's my vote. Donnelly was definitely hyped, but not as horrible as I'd remembered it to be. BD Quadio is an audio turd. Think it's not possible to be more compressed than Donnelly? Here's exhibit A.

 

Is the Wilder from the Group Portrait set?

 

Yes.

 

Interesting: we're pretty much in total agreement.

 

Call for Dr. @lukpac

 

BD for the win!

 

The Gastwirt and Wilder are quite similar. The Wilder feels slightly tighter than the Gastwirt, in a good way.

The Donnelly is a bit hyped and limited in comparison, but not terrible.

The Quadio mastering is amazingly bad. Besides being even more hyped than the Donnelly, both in the low end (there's that crazy kick drum again) and high end, the compression is completely amateur. There's noticeable pumping when the horns come in. This isn't Revolver; it isn't supposed to sound like that.

It also seems likely that a copy tape was used for the Quadio. The Gastwirt and Wilder *seem* to come from the master, while the Donnelly is unclear.

 

Gastwirt's the one I'm most familiar with; while I hear the box has a lot of great improvement, haven't listened to the discs much (I have the Japanese singles, which make up the box). Before I listen later Luc, give me a description of "tightness" to look for...?

(I'm not sure I'm gonna get around to the "Quadio" box until the Doobies box is out eventually... )

 

Without going back right now, my impressions were a hair sweeter top end and slightly less low end mush. Not a huge difference though.

 

I think we can all agree there is a significant difference with the BD - I contend that what you are hearing is much closer to the master tape.

Complain about the compression on the horns if you want but blame Guercio, not the mastering on the Blu-Ray.

Listen to the congas - the only clip where they actually sound real is the stereo BD. Same applies to everything - much easier to hear everything due to the increased resolution, not from compression in the mastering.

As for the bass, the other clips all lack in that department too.

Realism from digital audio, finally!

 

It’s not.

The pumping is only noticeable on the BD. It’s a problem with the mastering, not the recording or mixing.

 

That's your interpretation, nothing more.

I don't hear anything that isn't consistent with it being representative of what is on the master.

16/44.1 (noise shaped or not) is just not capable of reproducing the details on a decent studio tape from 1974. I think this blu-ray has those details (or as much as needed for the illusion to work).

 

There’s pumping on the BD. Said pumping isn’t on the CDs.

Jacked up bass and treble is not the same as resolution.

 

Like I say, I think you are hearing what's on the master tape and that this is not reproduced in enough resolution on the CDs for you to hear it clearly.

The original CDs lack bass and are a bit dull - not so with the BD.

The extra detail you seem to agree is apparent is not from compression. These discs are a pleasure to listen too, completely unlike any heavily compressed mastering I've ever heard.

Startling clarity without listener fatigue...

 

There’s pumping on the BD not present elsewhere. Do you not hear it?

That it’s only present on the BD means it necessarily isn’t on the master tapes. Of course, the masters may not have been used on the BD.

 

The BD is a turd imo. Donnelly doesn't move me. I don't own PORTRAIT; the Wilder's quite nice but I'd stick with my Gastwirt if push came to shove. Some vocals in the samples might have been useful, I guess. Nice work though!

 

So, if a reverb trail is truncated on a CD, it wasn't on the master tape in the first place? Spurious logic there.

If you are hearing more details in the compression (on the horns specifically, if I'm following you correctly) then what makes you so sure it's not the increased resolution that is responsible?

I agree the sound is changed more drastically on the blu-ray (stereo) compared with other masterings but I contend that is because it is simply a much better representation of what is on the master.

That's my take, having had the box for a while (i.e., my initial enthusiasm hasn't waned).

 

Because “increased resolution” has nothing to do with pumping. A poorer source or transfer doesn’t make something less compressed.

 

To proceed with this line or argument you'll have to define this "pumping" you are talking about a bit more clearly - when where, how?

 

Wilder sounded the best to my ears. Gastwirt sounded pretty good as well. Wasn't impressed with Donnelly. The BD sounds like a remix.

 

As I already stated:

One of the worst spots is at 0:09. The kick pushes everything else down.

For that line of reasoning to make sense, one has to accept that previous mastering engineers 1) all made huge changes and 2) in the case of Gastwirt and Wilder, those changes were almost the same.

That said, I have no problems with "drastic mastering" if it sounds good. I just don't think the BDs do sound good. Comparing Call On Me again, the Wilder mastering just sounds nice. The BD sounds hyped and oddly choked up. Not natural, not pleasant.

 

I can see the kick being more prominent affecting the sound of the mix but it's a positive change to my ears.

One thing I've noticed, Kath's flanged guitar sounds amazing on the BD and is particularly rich when the horns come in, adding to the already phasey sound. This is far less clear on the older CDs - on the Donnelly disc it's not bad but that mastering is heavily limited and sounds distorted and grainy in comparison to the BD. So, when the horns come in, the BD presentation is quite strikingly different from the others.

Again, I contend this striking difference is the presence of details that make everything come alive, without the need for any heavy compression in the mastering.

It's not just Kath's guitar though, everything is so much more alive on the BD. I don't believe that is down to compression at all - there's no listener fatigue and the depth of the detail is exceptional.

 

It's not simply that the kick is more prominent. It's that the loud kick, combined with compression not present elsewhere, pushes down everything else, creating pumping.

Yet it's the BD with heavy compression. Listen to/look at the crescendos from 0:24-0:30. The BD is the least dynamic, with the volume being pushed down as the horns get louder. Actually the opposite of "everything com[ing] alive".

 

I can hear, say, the congas throughout and they are not 'pumped' by anything, same with the other parts. Are you certain it's not just that the original mix has a bunch of processing that is more clearly reproduced on the BD than on the other discs?

Looking at the waveforms, if anything the BD looks more dynamic* (highest peaks are further from the lowest).

* compared to the Mark Wilder CD