I was just displaying this for the sake or argument. To point out that an average RMS of -18 dB or so isn't really all that quiet, as per a previous post. Also I was showing that the relative levels of volume (nothing much else all that meaningful is shown here, except that there's no obvious mastering compression employed) is fairly similar between the West German Polydor pressing and the 2012 pressing of that particular album. Just a comparison of relative volume/level/loudness. Of course, I agree with the thinking that obsessing over the 'stats' is a poor way to 'listen' to music. If you like the music, that's what matters mostly. For those who want to go further, they strive to find the 'best sounding' (to them) mastering/mix version. Sometimes that later category like to compare to understand why and what is different between two or more versions. It's then that these tools become useful. But to listen and enjoy music - no, they produce irrelevant information.
Good to see this available again. I missed it first time around and ordered it today. Only £47·89 from dvd.co.uk. http://www.dvd.co.uk/buy/catcdbox18...lete-studio-recordings-1972-1982-music-cd.htm
Flesh & Blood was mixed at a very low volume. My point was that this seems to be a straight transfer with little mastering involved. If you make a playlist in iTunes or whatever you use on your computer or listening device -- it comes in WAY quieter than all the other tracks. If I raise the volume up 100%, they are about the same volume as, say, Manifesto. So, to be clear before people start posting more waveforms or stat sheets. I'm HAPPY that this set is so untouched in terms of mastering, it's just a little annoying to have to go through and match volumes, though. I probably should have just kept my mouth shut. Whatever. Great music!
Thing is highly dynamic tracks/albums will never be as loud as compressed (or clipped/brickwalled) ones. If facing a choice of dynamic range vs perceived loudness, I'll take DR any time (one can always engage ReplayGain during playback to maintain reference loudness level)...
it's not a quiet mastering (or mix). if it were any louder it would require peak limiting. i just ran one of the liveliest tracks (Same Old Scene) up against Angel Eyes from Manifesto and they're of comparable volume, see below. this simple test and the waveform contradict what you're claiming. it may be your experience but as far as i'm concerned your initial post was misleading and now you're making further claims (you need to raise the volume by 100% to match these tracks?) that go against, y'know, evidence.
I think I see what you are saying. If you picked a few of the albums from the 2012 set, put the tracks in a playlist and random shuffled for instance, the Flesh+Blood tracks would appear to be a bit quieter than some of the others. Is that what you are saying? On my PC setup I didn't have that issue. The 2012 is slightly louder in most tracks than the old Polydor pressing of the album. I have previously made a compilation CD-R with some tracks from Street Life: 20 Great Hits, Flesh+Blood (800 019-2), Avalon (EGCD50), and Ferry's Boys and Girls (825 659-2) and the only one that really needed much level dropping was the relatively later remaster of Avalon in that case. I know the RMS average level over the entire track is a bit of a non-exactness (actually it *can* be completely off target) but in the case of the comparison between two masterings of the same track/album the results tend to be comparable. Hence my earlier post comparing DR analysis output. Looking at Unofficial DR Database you can compare the relative RMS volume level between different masterings, including the 2012 set. Avalon is quieter than the EGCD50 disc that I noted earlier needed dropping a little to fit my CD-R comp. So in my case, I don't really hear it as all that quiet. Sorry. I'm not trying to be purposefully argumentative. Have you checked to see if you have any processing turned on in your playback program? Soundcheck or ReplayGain or something? Try turning those off if they are on, and evaluating 'clean'. It doesn't really matter though, you can just use something like ReplayGain to get the level YOU want. that's the beauty of such a function. Totally user tweakable for the users desired preference, right, wrong or somewhere in between. Peace
The waveform doesn't tell all of the story with regard to how 'loud' it actually is. I haven't found any DAW that does it as nice as Audacity, but if you look at the waveform in Audacity, it has a two-tone colour scheme. The waveform represented normally, and then there is the relative RMS 'volume' in another colour superimposed on it. It's more meaningful than just a waveform I'll say. But yes, your posted waveforms both show strong dynamic behaviour for each track.
Just scanned just 2 Roxy photos - and rather poorly before I unlocked my photo program. Have no clue when or where they were taken although it looks like the Academy of Music in the 70s.
Amazon US has this back under a different product number for $76.99. To be released 2 February. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1389517282&pf_rd_i=507846
So glad to spark some Roxy Music conversation, even if it means my hearing, playback system, and sanity have fallen into question. F&B just sounds quieter than the others (and other selected tracks like To Turn You On & some single mixes). The volumes vary! For what it's worth, I use no processing or EQ in iTunes. And I've had a dickens of a time getting songs from Manifesto thru Avalon to sit nicely next to each other without big volume shifts disrupting the flow. Yes, I can adjust the volume, but it's been hard to get them to match. Having said that, I wouldn't have it any other way.
For compilation listening/conversion (equal track loudness at 89dB) you can engage track ReplayGain & voila. No volume adjustments will be needed after (well, in vast majority of cases).
Yeah ReplayGain is great for this. Foobar2000 has it integrated and using the EBU-R128 arguably better calculation algorithm for loudness level. It does a pretty darn good job of getting things level. Pretty good for album levelling. I wasn't trying to call your attributes into question, sorry if I offended. Not intentional
I agree with all the good things people have been writing about the sound quality on this. Now, when I put on "The Thrill of It All" box, my teeth start grinding and my ears hurt. The box and individual CDs also look nice, but are not quite up to the quality of The Beatles' Mono Box. It's really too bad a booklet with discographical and session details wasn't included (I can't see that it would have jacked the price of the set up THAT much). I hope there's a matching Bryan Ferry box someday.
Was about to order this from Amazon. Then I read some of the reviews which rate the sound poorly. The most interesting review, near the top, refers to himself as an aficionado of DCC, MFSL, etc. Says the sound is harsh beyond what he can stand. Does anyone here know what this guy is referring to? I'm confused.
he's either referring to a different issue or he's the one who's confused. this set couldn't be further from harsh.
The same guy said: "The term "flat transfers" is often misused and abused. The simple truth is that NO reproduction of analogue tapes can be made to sound good on CDs (or SACDS) without addressing in SOME manner the problems inherent in transferring their musical content to a very different and compromised medium such as the limited bits and bit rate reproduction on red book CDs." To someone like me who doesn't really understand all of this, he sounds like he might know what he's talking about. I have been itching to buy this box for a few months, but it seems like for everything positive I hear about it, theres also someone negative said. I've never been on the fence so long about something like this.
