Chicago "Call On Me" Mastering Comparison

call on me bd wilder comparison.flac

That switches back and forth between the BD and the Wilder, several times throughout the clip. Starts with the BD, then switches to the Wilder at 0:02.5, then back to the BD at 0:06.5, etc. The edits should be completely obvious. If they aren't, view the file in spectral view; the bits from the Wilder clearly cut off shy of 21kHz.

The portions from the BD should be identical to the original file; I did no processing to it. For the Wilder bits, I first converted to 192kHz, then speed matched to the BD, then increased the level by 1.54dB.

For the first two edits, other than the difference in EQ and some light clicks (sloppiness on my part), the two are quite similar. If anything, the BD may still be a hair louder. But once the band comes in, it's very clear how much louder the Wilder is.

Here's the same comparison, everything exactly the same, except now the Wilder is reduced in volume by 4dB compared to the previous clip to match the levels in the loud sections:

call on me bd wilder loud comparison.flac

While the levels are similar in the louder sections, the Wilder is noticeably quieter in the intro. And this arguably really highlights the EQ difference between the two: to my ears, the Wilder sounds full and natural sounding, while the BD sounds pinched, with the horns sounding like those infamous Carnegie Hall kazoos.

 

I haven't the level-matching experiment, but I hear exactly what @lukpac hears. As he says, it is not subtle.

Many years ago, I worked as a disc jockey at several radio stations, AM and FM, mostly rock. I've heard the CBS Volumax, the Orban Optimod, and a DAP (discriminate audio processor) whose name escapes me at the moment. The pumping on the BD track sounds very much like what I used to hear in the on-air monitor speakers. It was a "radio sound" that could be very exciting, and certainly pushed the reverb trails up as the compressor unclamped the level after big transients, but it wasn't accurately reproducing the recording. Then again, accurate reproduction wasn't the point. The point was to sound huge on small speakers, typically in an automobile. This kind of pumping compression doesn't sound like digital brickwalling. To my ears, it sounds like a multiband real-time compressor that's attacking and releasing different parts of the frequency spectrum in different ways. I'm sure it's a plugin and the mastering was all "in the box," but it's weird (and to me, unpleasant) to hear what sounds like a 1970s-vintage big-city FM station sound coming off the BD.

When I do this comparison on my main Martin-Logan speakers, or on my OPPO PM-3 planar headphones, the pumping compression and the goosed bass and treble on the BD are pretty much unlistenable, to my ears. By contrast, the Wilder mastering sounds dynamic, lifelike, and full of well-proportioned musical detail. The Gastwirt sounds flatter, and grainier, but with an essentially similar tonality. The Donnelly pushes up the mids and reduces the dynamic range, a very shouty sound I don't enjoy.

Preference is preference and there's no arguing about that. That doesn't mean, though, that there's no such thing as evidence and that no argument or judgment about fact is possible.

 

Bob Seger - Night Moves during the break, anyone?

 

Yes, the EQ difference is grossly audible in that last comparison. Sounds very smiley-faced or loudness-buttoned. The stereo image also collapses quite dramatically when the horns kick in on the BD. By contrast, the Wilder horns have depth as well as fullness (that depth is a bit lacking on the Gastwirt by comparison, to my ears).

 

It seems like you are subjectively choosing the level matching - for instance, my subjective take is that the Wilder clips sound louder in first clip throughout. Maybe we just have drastically different frequency responses in our hearing?

All I know is I always prefer the sound of the BD over the Wilder (and the other CDs).

"Saturday In The Park" never sounded so good

 

I disagree that the Wilder sounds louder throughout in the first sample, but let me ask you this: do you feel the difference in loudness is the *same* throughout the song? Do you not agree that the BD and Wilder are at least quite similar in level at the start of the clip, but once the band comes in the difference in volume is much greater?

It should go without saying that Danny Seraphine wasn't playing a 10' bass drum on Saturday In The Park. As such, I wouldn't expect that the recording should sound like he did. And, in fact, outside of the BD, it doesn't.

Another thought regarding what is or isn't on the tapes. I just compared "Listen" from 6 sources: the Gastwirt CTA CD, Group Portrait, the Mastersound CTA CD, the Donnelly CTA CD, the BD, and the MFSL CTA. While not *identical* the tonality on all but the Gastwirt and BD is quite similar. It is highly unlikely that 4 different mastering engineers, at 4 different times, used large amounts of almost the same EQ, to create results sounding significantly different from the master tapes, especially when 3 of those engineers are Mark Wilder, Doug Sax, and Rob LoVerde. Whether or not one *likes* it or not is of course a personal preference, but it's pretty safe to say the sound of the BD is *not* the sound of the tapes.

 

The Wilder sounds louder throughout to me. I don't think it's possible to quantify the perceived volume difference precisely enough to draw any objective conclusions, especially given that the EQ difference makes any measured comparisons less meaningful.

Not trying to be difficult just not allowing in any confirmation bias - objectively, I'm not convinced (and I'm not asking to be).

Check out the Castle CD for VIII - sounds more tonally similar to the blu-ray than the other CDs. It's all speculation in the end - I doubt that the Quadio stereo is from a dub but that's just my guess.

 

Objectively, the volume difference is fairly clear. Regardless of at exactly what level one feels the two are perfectly level matched in the intro, doing so results in the Wilder being noticeably louder later in the song.

I wasn't specifically addressing tape sources in my comment. What I *was* addressing is the suggestion that the mastering of the BD is somehow closer to the sound of the tapes. When 3 different mastering engineers come up with results that are pretty similar, and a 4th comes up with something quite different, I don't think it's at all unreasonable to assume the 3 similar masterings are closer to the sound of the tapes than the one that sounds radically different.

 

Subjectively to you - I'm compelled to say this as I hear it differently. I objectively hear a difference in apparent level between the two but to me the Wilder starts out louder and remains louder throughout. I don't get more than that basic impression, honestly.

These weren't each produced 'in a vacuum' - what's to stop a new edition being based loosely on a previous edition (vinyl, CD and beyond), sound-wise?

Too many variables - not enough data.

Why would the Castle CD be so different from the CBS CD? Who knows but ruling out possibilities based on shakey assumptions about the source tapes used is not the way to answer it - it's unscientific.

 

Whether you get the impression or not, it's there.

As previously noted:

And yet you seem willing to believe the BDs are closer to the sound of the tapes, with zero data to support that belief.

 

That statement doesn't sound wrong to you?

As for Mark Wilder's recollections, there is this:

[from here]

"From what I remember, we had original masters on everything. Most had stickers from Guerico's production company on them. I did do some A/B work against pressings. At that time it was easy, the Lp library was in the same building, unlike today."

My mind is open on the subject. If it turns out that these stereo BDs were heavily manipulated with DSP then I'll be happy to accept it. I'd be interested to know the mastering chain Craig Anderson used - incredible sounding ADC.

 

It doesn't. There's definitely a difference in volume variation between the BD and the Wilder; the Wilder has noticeably more.

Your mind certainly has not seemed very open. The evidence is quite clear that they *have* been heavily manipulated (whether by DSP or analog hardware), but you don't seem very willing to accept it. Both in terms of heavy EQ and heavy dynamic manipulation.

 

I have the Wilder version from the Group Portrait Box, the Gastwirt version on original Columbia CD and once had the Donnelly version from the Rhino Remaster series.
Even without listening to your audio clips, I already know the differences in sound between those versions. Every time I want to listen to Chicago on CD, I always play the Group Portrait Box set for its warmer sound and punchier bass. The Gastwirt version is also good but I think the Wilder is a little bit better in the sound department I have already mentioned. It's no secret that I abhor the Donnelly versions of Chicago from Rhino in every Chicago forum. I was so disappointed with them that I sold all my Donnelly copies without procrastinating. Honestly, I haven't heard the BD Quadio Mastering. My brother has a copy of the Quadio box set that I can listen to.

 

I couldn't deduce that from listening to the clips.

"quite clear"? Again, not to me. It seems to me that your confidence level exceeds that of the data presented. That doesn't mean your conclusions are necessarily wrong, of course. I'm just questioning the reasoning which gets you to such a firm position.

I am not saying I know what was or wasn't done in the mastering, I only know that I am enjoying the results (in particular the accurate sounding detail) in a way that makes me question the assumption that the audio was heavily manipulated. From what has been presented thus far, it is still unclear to me, that's all.

Do you have access to the Castle CD of VIII? It's interesting in that it sounds tonally much closer to the BD than the other CDs (not that this proves anything) - it is my preferred source for the album on CD (but it pales next to the BD).

 

I can't believe anyone wouldn't be able to hear the pumping compression on the BD clip. And once that's baked in, you can't remove it. And that pumping doesn't exist on any of the previous masterings. So there goes the "it's that way on the master tape" argument.

 

Again, that *you* couldn't deduce it does not mean it isn't true.

The Quadio set has very audible compression that isn't on other releases, including audible pumping. That is simply not something that can be undone; if it was present on the master tapes, it would be present on all releases, but it isn't. Even *if* it was possible to undo it (and remember, it's not), it would be in no way reasonable to assume that *every* previous release removed it, and it was not until the Quadio set that the tapes were presented "as-is".

In terms of EQ used, again, it simply isn't reasonable to assume that several different previous releases by highly respected engineers would all be significantly manipulated in roughly the same way, while the much different sounding Quadio set just happened to be flat from the tapes. Especially when one mastering engineer who has worked with the material has stated he didn't use much EQ, and another (albeit unnamed here) mastering engineer has commented on how bad they think the Quadio versions sound, as well as how boosted they believe certain elements to be.

Now, sometimes it is definitely true that master tapes go unused for years ("do not use"), while copies made with additional processing (EQ, bass summing, compression, etc) get used for all releases, until a new remaster goes back and uses the masters. In those cases, yes, there can be a distinct difference in sound: different EQ, wider dynamic range, better stereo separation, etc. But besides the fact that there's no evidence the masters haven't been used over the years, nor any evidence that they were newly unearthed for the Quadio set, as I stated above, the compression on Quadio simply could not exist on the masters. Making copies does not remove the effects of compression.

As far as enjoying the results goes, again, what you like is what you like. But I must say, as a fellow longtime member of this forum, I find it odd, considering things like "smiley-faced EQ" (or, if you like, "midrange suck-out") and heavy compression have long been seen as unnecessary evils here, and yet you're embracing them.

And as this got posted as I was writing my reply, yes, this.

 

I hear a big difference and compression artefacts are one of those differences but I don't know what to ascribe it to.

Listening to "Aire" on the BD (stereo) I can hear a compressor on the wash of the cymbal. On the CDs I can't really hear the wash in the first place. However, on the BD I don't hear any related compression artefacts on the other elements in the mix (listen to the electric piano for example, solid as a rock). Furthermore, this characteristic compressed cymbal wash isn't on everything on the album, it seems entirely mix dependent.

I hear the same style of compression on cymbals in "Harry Truman", in this instance it is audible on all the versions of VIII I have so I know Guercio uses such methods as and when he sees fit. It is much more obvious on the BD, however - is this from heavy manipulation or are the audio cues just that much better that these things jump out at you? The detail (the sound of piano strings and their harmonics, etc.) on the BDs sounds remarkably natural to me for something that is purportedly the result of heavy compression (normally I'd expect to hear less reality to the detail in that case).

You say that the 'pumping' is not on any of the previous editions and therefore it's not on the master. Could it be that through differences in EQ coupled with the increased resolution, such compression artefacts, etc. are revealed on the blu-ray that are not obvious on the CDs?

I guess we have both made our positions as clear as we can.

Ultimately it all boils down to listening pleasure for me - on a case by case basis, if heavy compression or drastic EQ sounds better to me then that's what I'll listen to by choice. I'm not sure how details can sound so 'right' to me on the Chicago BDs if heavy processing was involved but that will be interesting to learn if it is indeed the case.

I've preferred some potentially 'frowned upon' versions before - Big Star mini-LPs (for their first two albums) and Zombies 40th Anniversary Odessey And Oracle mono come to mind (of course, I'm not the only one but it is against the grain you are alluding to). I also sometimes dislike what appear to be generally well received releases - what's with the incongruous reverb and generally lacklustre sound on Moondance Deluxe? To my ears, whatever was done results in a dull, unconvincing listening experience (unfortunate for me since the content is exceptional). Even the BD of the album itself sounds lifeless to me and I prefer the original CD despite its limitations.

We all have our own personal tastes - however, trying to objectively prove the validity of them is a slippery slope, even when objective evidence is available.

I haven't seen any objective evidence yet in this case, not that this means there isn't any - I know you and others are absolutely sure about the ludicrous compression. Maybe try listening to the BDs with an open mind and at least experience the incredible rich harmonic detail - all I can tell you is that it really enhances the appreciation of the music for me.

 

No. That’s not how compression works. Pumping doesn’t go away simply because the transfer isn’t “hi-res”. Lower resolution does not magically increase dynamic range.

As far as listening with an open mind goes, I always have. And I’ve always heard the same terrible mastering on the BDs. Overbearing EQ and compression are not the same as rich harmonic detail.

 

I don't hear the whole thing pumping on the BD clip - some compression artefacts in the original mix are clearer though

Seriously though, you don't accept that increased detail can give audio cues to things you just don't hear without that detail? Specifically, in this case, coupled with an EQ change that brings up the cymbal wash?

The brain is an incredible interpretation device but it relies entirely on sensory cues.

 

Once again, that isn’t how compression works. Both a general reduction in dynamic range and specific instances of pumping and clamping down are audible and visible. “Increased detail” has nothing to do with obvious and significant reductions in dynamics.

 

So it's a magic trick? Silly me.

Yes, I know how compression works . I've not been convinced by the audio and video evidence thus far, that's all.

You seem to be completely ignoring the presence of low level detail and its role, in conjunction with different EQ in this case, in revealing seemingly obvious characteristics that simply aren't heard when that detail is not present.

 

Based on your comments in this thread, it doesn't seem that you do. Compression is nothing more than an automated volume control: when the volume of the input signal hits a certain threshold (and after a specified attack time), the compressor starts applying gain reduction. When the input volume falls back below that threshold, that gain reduction ceases, after a specified release time. The end result is a noticeable difference in volume variation, one that is dependent on the program material and the compressor settings.

In terms of Call On Me, those volume variations are twofold:

1) Noticeable pumping when the drums/cymbals trigger the compressor, which pushes down the volume on the whole recording, followed by the whole recording getting louder again after the compressor releases. The hit at 0:9.32 is a good example of this. Not only is the pumping audible, you can clearly see how the volume is pushed down immediately after the hit on the BD but not on the Wilder.

2) An overall reduction in dynamic range, as evidenced by the difference between the relatively quite intro and the much louder horn blasts at the end of the clip. The compressor isn't being triggered much or at all in the intro, but in those loud sections it's pushing the level down by about 3dB.

Those artifacts aren't present on the other releases, nor is that difference in volume variation due to "low level detail" or lack thereof. Those samples that I posted at 192kHz/24-bit? I just exported them at 22.05kHz/8-bit, and while they generally sound terrible, those differences in volume are still immediately apparent. The compression is still present on the BD, and it's still not present on the Wilder.

 

I repeat:

I follow everything you are saying I just don't agree that anything is proven by it. It's your opinion, based upon a somewhat subjective analysis and with a (un)healthy dose of your own personal bias (I am talking about your certitude, not whether it happens to be the correct explanation).

It's easy to be absolutely sure of something when you are not strictly adhering to objectivity in the analysis.

 

These are facts, not opinions:

 

...and all the OP asked was "which sounds best to you?"