Hi-Res Download News (HDTracks, ProStudioMasters, Pono, etc.) & Software/Mastering Part 12**

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by Gary, May 9, 2015.

  1. Vandenville

    Vandenville Forum Resident

    Location:
    United Kingdom
    OK, here's the DR data:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Analyzed: Eurythmics / Touch (Remastered)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DR Peak RMS Duration Track
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DR13 -0.26 dB -15.62 dB 4:56 01-Here Comes the Rain Again (Remastered) Remastered
    DR15 -0.09 dB -16.95 dB 4:46 02-Regrets (Remastered) Remastered
    DR13 -0.20 dB -15.54 dB 4:07 03-Right By Your Side (Remastered) Remastered
    DR15 -0.71 dB -17.24 dB 4:51 04-Cool Blue (Remastered) Remastered
    DR14 -0.74 dB -16.78 dB 4:48 05-Who's That Girl (Remastered) Remastered
    DR14 -0.19 dB -15.93 dB 4:48 06-The First Cut (Remastered) Remastered
    DR13 -0.93 dB -16.45 dB 4:39 07-Aqua (Remastered) Remastered
    DR12 -0.48 dB -16.12 dB 5:23 08-No Fear, No Hate, No Pain (No Broken Hearts) [Remastered]
    DR13 -0.58 dB -15.96 dB 7:32 09-Paint a Rumour (Remastered) Remastered
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Number of tracks: 9
    Official DR value: DR14

    Samplerate: 44100 Hz
    Channels: 2
    Bits per sample: 24
    Bitrate: 1560 kbps
    Codec: FLAC
    ================================================================================

    It's shown as true 24bit, but as Plan9 mentioned that does not really mean it was a true 24bit source.
     
    sunspot42 likes this.
  2. sunspot42

    sunspot42 Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Francisco
    That's...odd. Why 44.1? I'm assuming this is a label mistake. Either that or they just tweaked the old digital master. But why not go back to the analog 2-track masters - which is what Dave claims this remaster series is all about?

    One other possibility I suppose besides the ones listed above - an aborted SACD remaster from a decade or so ago, downconverted to 44.1/24 and released now...
     
    Vandenville likes this.
  3. c-eling

    c-eling They're made of light,We never would have guessed

    Wouldn't that of just as been as compressed? :laugh:
    I just went back and forth on Touch with the new 24 and my old US Denon.
    I'm wondering where this 'brightness' is coming from with remasters lately. Is it the new converters their using, dithering etc. ?
    Noticed it with the latest Fleetwood Mac's and Peter Gabriel's. Almost a 'sterile' presentation. Some may enjoy it
     
  4. sunspot42

    sunspot42 Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Francisco
    I suspect it's EQ choices, since I doubt these are perfectly-flat transfers.

    Of course, it's also possible the brightness is on the original studio 2-tracks, and was lost on some earlier digital (and analog) masters. And really old digital masters might be slightly dull, because the old A/D converters likely had steeper, less sophisticated low-pass filters - which aren't even required for high-res masters at 48kHz and greater (although that doesn't fully-explain why the 44.1kHz Touch sounds a bit bright).

    I think I'll hold off on Touch and wait to see if it turns up at a higher resolution. Are these Eurythmics remasters available on any of the other high-res sites yet, say in Europe?
     
  5. c-eling

    c-eling They're made of light,We never would have guessed

    Thanks for the info.
    Qobuz has them. I'm going to pass on the rest of these. I guess I enjoy the 'dullness' found on my old discs :D
     
  6. sunspot42

    sunspot42 Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Francisco
    Touch is 44.1 at Qobuz as well...

    The original CD's sounded a lot like the vinyl, although I was never able to compare them side-by-side since my vinyl got stolen decades ago. I do recall the vinyl sounding slightly hotter, especially at the high-end - maybe they mastered these CD's to sound more like that vinyl? Although I thought some of that might have been simply due to vinyl's inherent harmonic distortion, which makes everything sound hotter and slightly gauzy at the high end... I always thought the (original) CDs were a much more pleasant listen (especially Revenge). Maybe on better turntables the differences would be minimized.
     
    c-eling likes this.
  7. c-eling

    c-eling They're made of light,We never would have guessed

    It is. Did you think it was 96 elsewhere? The vinyl is cut using the 44 also.
     
  8. ServingTheMusic

    ServingTheMusic Forum Resident

    Location:
    SoCal
    I think it is becoming pretty clear that 24/44.1 is becoming the de facto standard for "hi-rez"..
     
  9. sunspot42

    sunspot42 Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Francisco
    Bizarre. Why 44.1?

    Only explanation I can think of is that the original analog master is lost or damaged, so they used an old - likely really old - 44.1 copy. Which would have to be 16-bit as well, meaning this remaster is pretty much worthless.

    At least it's not compressed to hell...
     
  10. sunspot42

    sunspot42 Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Francisco
    Since Sweet Dreams is available at higher res, yes. I just assumed the label didn't send a true high-res master to HDTracks by mistake or something.

    :confused:
     
    c-eling likes this.
  11. ServingTheMusic

    ServingTheMusic Forum Resident

    Location:
    SoCal
    ...because the vast majority of new releases (not remasters) are 24/44.1...this avoids confusion..numerous recent archival releases
    follow suit..Chicago, Billy Cobham, Barbara Streisand etc.
     
  12. Maffune

    Maffune Well-Known Member

    Location:
    North America
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2018
    JakeM, Vandenville and c-eling like this.
  13. c-eling

    c-eling They're made of light,We never would have guessed

  14. sunspot42

    sunspot42 Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Francisco
    I find it hard to believe Touch was ever a digital mixdown. It was released in November of 1983 - few pop records in 1983 were digital at any stage. You didn't see that take off until '84-'85

    More likely the analog original is lost or damaged.

    Also, it sounds like some of the album is available analog from that tweet How much? If it's more than a track, why not release at a higher res with a note that "x" tracks are sourced from 44.1 digital masters (for whatever reason).

    Weird.
     
  15. c-eling

    c-eling They're made of light,We never would have guessed

    :shrug:
    Unless Miles spills more details it has either digital in the chain or the hype sticker is a lie (which has happened before).
    It's definitely remastered/tweaked/re-eq'd and not just a level re-shift. Annie's vocals are brighter. If this were an old compact disc I would have checked it for pre-emphasis :laugh:
     
    sunspot42 likes this.
  16. lpfreak1170

    lpfreak1170 Senior Member

    Location:
    Marion, AR
    Ouch. Thanks for the info...I'll just stick with the CD.
     
    Vandenville likes this.
  17. sunspot42

    sunspot42 Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Francisco
    OK, downloaded Sweet Dreams and In The Garden. Hmmm...

    Definitely not compressed, at all. Dynamics pretty much identical to the original CDs. Yea! Mastered about a dB louder each than my original CDs, and I'm sure with far more linear A/D converters than we had back in the '80s. And at 24/96, so goodbye brickwall filters in the audible range.

    Sweet Dreams in particular suffers from really sharp treble on some tracks - sounds like a big boost, although doing an A/B comparison I'm not sure of that. The sharpness is OK on the quieter tracks, like "The Walk", but on some of the louder tracks ("Wrap It Up") it's borderline unpleasant and I think kind of ruins the record's overall dark mood. I thought the bass was anemic compared to the original CD, but again an A/B comparison show's they're pretty close. There seems to be more bass extension, and what bass is there is very, very crisp compared to the muddier original CD.

    I think what I took for a treble boost might actually be an upper midrange boost. The remaster is a bit more forward.

    In fact everything is much clearer. Annie's vocals leap out in a way they never did on the earlier CD. The quieter tracks are vastly improved - less muddy, more depth to the mix, everything. But on some of the louder cuts - like the title track - I think that treble tips over into shrill, and the extra clarity lessens their crankability.

    They definitely used a different - and clunkier - mix of "Somebody Told Me". Not loving that. Wonder how that ended up on the original master tape? How did the original album end up with a different mix? I'm guessing they remixed it and provided it on a separate tape while making the vinyl and later CD masters. Maybe an aborted single mix?

    I like this enough that I might try to fiddle with the EQ myself. Add a dB or two to the low and mid bass and tame that treble by a similar amount and I think it would be perfect. Since this thing is 24/96 there's lots of room to play with it. Then again, A/Bing the title cut, maybe not. I'm wondering if what I perceive as a treble or midrange boost is really just enhanced clarity from a much better transfer. Hmmm...

    It's hard to believe this was recorded on a TEAC half-inch 8-track and a cheap, used Soundcraft mixer. It ain't Steely Dan, but the one cut they mixed on a big 16-track deck - "Wrap It Up" - doesn't really sound any better and in some ways it's too busy and sounds arguably worse. They also ran out of tracks on the TEAC, so Annie sang her harmonies live during the mixdown! Article about the recording of this album here: eurythmics what console - Gearslutz Pro Audio Community

    With In The Garden, my go-to version was the German CD from the '80s, which was very bright. Like, crazy treble. So even these treble-happy masters aren't that hot. The first two cuts sound great, although again bass strikes me as slightly anemic. Garden has a gauzy sound, so you don't quite get the clarity boost you get on so much of Sweet Dreams, where it's really apparent on half the tracks, but this is a more-balanced presentation than the German CD overall and much better than the overcompressed mid-2000's remaster.

    A few cuts seem to sport a bit more obvious clarity in patches, like the flute in "Never Gonna Cry Again". "All The Young (People Of Today)" also benefits - it feels like a subtle layer of grunge has been removed, the spoken voices at the very end pop a bit more out of the mix. And this mix tames the hi-hats in "Sing-Sing" compared to that German CD, where they're a borderline sonic assault.

    As with Sweet Dreams, while the bass is slightly anemic when it does kick in (like the blasts on "Sing Sing") there seems to be more extension and it's much crisper. I wonder if this was EQ'd specifically with LP mastering in mind? Because cutting the bass and enhancing the treble is just what you might do to make a tape sound better on vinyl...but it's not so hot for high res digital.

    Doing an A/B of the first cut ("English Summer"), the bass is definitely slightly stronger on this remaster than on the German CD, and the extension down very low is dramatic. It seems quieter than the German CD, too. I wonder if that German CD was cut from a dub? Not hearing any hiss, but it doesn't sound like it's been noised processed. If they did, the processing has gotten more transparent. So it's odd I thought the bass was "anemic" when really it's stronger on the remaster. Again, I wonder if the clarity of the transfer makes the whole thing sound lighter.

    There's a speed problem with "Belinda" at around 1:41. Head dragging or tape damage or something? I haven't listened to all of every track to see if other issues crop up.

    If you're not treble averse I'd give the high-res Sweet Dreams a recommendation. It could certainly be tamed if you're willing to put in the effort. Honestly, the clarity of the whole thing subtly transforms the feel of the record, which bugs me a bit. It wasn't intentionally lo-fi per se, but there was a certain darkness to earlier editions of Sweet Dreams that's changed here on some cuts. In The Garden on the other hand seems like the best version available. Slightly enhanced clarity, the bass was already anemic so the extension and clarity is welcome (and if anything the high-res is slightly boosted), and the treble is a big improvement over the German CD.

    I assume the vinyl will sound good if they don't screw up the pressing. Which is always a crapshoot.
     
  18. Plan9

    Plan9 Mastering Engineer

    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    You have your answer in this tweet from mastering engineer Miles Showell:

    Apparently most (?) of the tracks final masters were compiled from different takes copied to early digital (16bit/44.1kHz) for more convenient edits. They couldn't be re-edited from the original analogue tapes as these don't exist anymore.
    They wouldn't release the remaster in its original Hi-Res state because it is "unethical" (which is sad IMO, as long as you clearly state which songs are 44.1kHz and the price is lowered accordingly, I don't see a problem...).
    [​IMG]
     
  19. Steve Martin

    Steve Martin Wild & Crazy Guy

    Location:
    Plano, TX
    Could someone point out the a timestamp with a really obvious difference in the Somebody Told Me mix?

    I have the early RCA PCD14681 and am having trouble finding anything that is obvious to me.
     
  20. Vandenville

    Vandenville Forum Resident

    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Well, it looks like other artists/labels are not worried about releasing their 44khz-limited material as 96/24 without any notification (Depeche Mode anyone?)

    Or look at Steve Miller's "Abracadabra"... it's cut off at 16kHz and sold as 96/24 (did they use a MP3 as source?)
     
    oneway23 and c-eling like this.
  21. Plan9

    Plan9 Mastering Engineer

    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    I don't condone this sort of stuff. Plus it is silly to do this at this point where everyone and their mother can use a spectrogram and complain on the internet...
     
  22. Vandenville

    Vandenville Forum Resident

    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Exactly.

    But I see your point. They could have sold it as 96/24 with a marker like "* Track 1, 5, 6 sourced from 44/16". At least we would get the other tracks as pure 96/24.
     
    sunspot42 and Plan9 like this.
  23. robertawillisjr

    robertawillisjr Music Lover

    Location:
    Hampton, VA
    Unfortunately true.
     
  24. sunspot42

    sunspot42 Forum Resident

    Location:
    San Francisco
    That doesn't really make sense, though. There weren't many digital mixing decks at the time. I think it's more likely some cuts on Touch were mixed down to two-track digital - that happened quite a lot in the '80s, although the summer and fall of '83 was pretty early for that.

    Explains some of the sound of Touch, though. It's chilly and has some of that early-digital graininess and harshness that Sony recorder exhibited. I remember when someone - probably Stereo Review - reviewed the album and noted a dramatic drop-off in fidelity between the first and second sides, something which I noticed too at the time. I wonder if more of the analog cuts are on the first or second side...

    It's all over the track. There are 2-3 awkward transitions between sections on the remaster that are much more smoothly executed on the original RCA LP and CD. Which makes me think the original album might have featured a later single mix swapped in to replace the album mix, a single that ultimately didn't happen.
     
  25. Plan9

    Plan9 Mastering Engineer

    Location:
    Toulouse, France
    I don't think you understand. Nobody talked about mixing digitally! (although that was possible at the time).
    If we are to believe Miles Showell (and I see no reason to doubt his word), a few different analogue stereo mixes were copied to digital for editing several of these mixes together in order to create the final stereo master that's on the album. You can make more precise edits on digital than on analogue, especially if they are tight cuts. The songs that didn't require the piecing of several mixes together kept their original analog state.
     

Share This Page

molar-endocrine