CDs Mastered With the Volume too Low

Send me all your quietly mastered CDs... bet you they will most likely sound amazing on my system... I know how to use the volume knob...pretty easy...

 

I know I’m in the minority, but I think that most current remasters sound much better than their early digital counterparts. I’ll take a modern mastering over a weak sounding early digital transfer any day. Even if that means having a "loud" mastering. But I disagree with most that peak limiting changes dynamics, the crest factor is responsible for that, and controlling peaks aids in that approach.

The A/D converters are so much better now and much better suited to really capture everything the master tapes have to offer. This paired with the fact that early CD's weren't necessarily from the masters but often from safety copies or a vinyl master (summed bass, rolled off top end) and you have a recipe for disaster no matter how the waveform looks.

Case in point, the Cocteau Twins reissues that Robin Guthrie did... they are universally hated. Everyone says they're too loud, and he added too much bass... But here's the thing, Guthrie said that's how the masters sound, no early digital recording was ever able to pick up the low end like the band wanted. Listening to the thunderous opening of "When Mama Was Moth" on the reissue of Head Over Heals sounds much better than the original. It's spacious, thunderous, and fits the music perfectly. I'm not sure why everyone hates the reissues except that they sound so different from what they're used to.

I posted recently about how good the new Buzzcocks remasters were... Singles Going Steady especially. Going back to the original master tapes for each track to make the compilation turns it into an entirely different experience! It's like a brand new album... Lots of bottom end, the speed corrected since most punk songs were sped up a bit, and yes, it has some peak limiting, but it doesn't adversely affect the music at all.

And to add to the discussion... The original Wire Pink Flag is notoriously low, and once again, the recent remasters really improve upon this great album.

 

Good one, man! I had no idea about the mastering thing and the A/D converters stuff.

 

Some, few remasters are good and most are not.

 

A post-90s CD mastered too quiet:
Primal Scream - Screamadelica, from 1991.
I have the Sony Austria CD, where the entire CD peaks at around 70%, with most tracks peaking at 50% - 60%.

I also have the 2011 remaster, which has managed to increase the volume with almost no effect on the dynamic range much (this is from eyeballing the waveforms).

EDIT: Also the US Epic release of Oasis - What's the Story Morning Glory seemed to peak at ~75% for the entire CD. I remember reading it somewhere, but I don't have that CD so I can't confirm. I only have the Sony Austria which peaks at 99%.

 

Then go bother someone else.

 

This is probably the quietest album in my collection when it comes to redbook cds:

Manowar - Fighting the World (USA 7 90563-2 Atco)




My "Clair Marlo - Let It Go" SACD would be the other candidate...

 

The first Neil Young album, also "It's a Beautiful Day".

 

My Sheffield Lab CD of "Clair Marlo - Let It Go" is not low at all. I know they are not the same release or exact same track list though.

My lowest was "Mirage" by Fleetwood Mac. I think it was a Japan for USA or whatever. I don't have it anymore. Just too low. I have the West German target of "Mirage and it is much better sounding with higher levels. Sounds good.

Pat

 

This is the particular one for me. A very very quiet album.

01 Born With The Blues | .m4a | 44.1k | 32 (float) | -5.71 | -24.33 | 15 |
02 Just Let Me Be | .m4a | 44.1k | 32 (float) | -5.45 | -26.70 | 17 |
03 Red Haired Boogie | .m4a | 44.1k | 32 (float) | -10.17 | -26.43 | 12 |
04 Blue And Disgusted | .m4a | 44.1k | 32 (float) | -5.14 | -22.29 | 14 |
05 New Key To The Highway | .m4a | 44.1k | 32 (float) | -5.69 | -23.16 | 14 |
06 I'd Take Her To Chicago | .m4a | 44.1k | 32 (float) | -4.62 | -26.16 | 18 |
07 Harlem Bound | .m4a | 44.1k | 32 (float) | -5.52 | -23.23 | 14 |
08 El Capitan | .m4a | 44.1k | 32 (float) | -4.46 | -21.65 | 13 |
09 I Just Landed In Your Town | .m4a | 44.1k | 32 (float) | -5.11 | -25.56 | 16 |
10 John Henry | .m4a | 44.1k | 32 (float) | -8.40 | -29.07 | 17 |
11 I Believe I'll Settle Down | .m4a | 44.1k | 32 (float) | -6.44 | -23.82 | 14 |
12 Bad Luck And Troubles | .m4a | 44.1k | 32 (float) | -5.32 | -24.99 | 15 |
13 Late Afternoon Blues | .m4a | 44.1k | 32 (float) | -11.06 | -29.37 | 12 |
14 Memphis Slim, U.S.A | .m4a | 44.1k | 32 (float) | -6.69 | -22.83 | 13 |

Number of EP/Album Files: 14
Official EP/Album DR: 15




Memphis Slim ‎– Memphis Slim, U.S.A.
Label:
Candid ‎– CCD 79024
Format:
CD, Album, Reissue
Country:
Germany
Released:
1988

 

Been awhile, but I remember CCR's songs being relatively low in volume. But the "skinniest" drummed song I've visually noticed is I Am a Child from Decade.

 

The original 35DP-20 mastering of Silk Degrees by Boz Scaggs, with pre-emphasis, is whisper quiet once decoded.

This mastering was actually being used on certain reissues well into the 1990s - including my Australian-made CDCBS 81193.

I should add that once you turn it up, it sounds absolutely awesome. That's why they make volume knobs

 

We all have our tastes, unfortunately, i'm one that is not a fan of his remasters, especially the further you get into the catalog. He had zero reason to clip and re-level. You can add dB's without destroying the audio. Plain and simple, in my opinion- these were remastered for earbuds/portables.
Cico Buff, 2004

1988

 

The US pressing of The B-52's Wilde Planet. Even the Japanese remaster from a couple of years ago sounds a bit quiet.

 

Actually, you placed yourself in a conversation where you weren't involved in the first place. Who was bothering whom? SMH

 

Dear Steve,

Can You please explain if and so in what way the average peak level, as stated above, would have an impact on the sound quality (i.e. what actually comes out of the speakers/headphones)

 

Agreed, excellent sounding mastering. Warm and dynamic

 

The Pair Lovin' Spoonful comp was too low.

 

Let me ask you this, if I were to take the remaster, and de-master it if you will, to match the sound and volume of the 1988 pressing, could you tell the difference? Do you think that you would be able to ABX the results?

To me, the 1988 has a lot of spurious peaks that add nothing to the music, and just rob the center of being heard better. Most of the music resides around -12 from the looks of it, from a loudness point of view. Each one of those "spikes" in the waveform that go all the way up to -2dB, they do so for a fraction of a second, so short in fact, that if you take them down by 6dB (essentially what the remaster is doing), they will be perceived exactly the same! He did not "clip and de-level", as you said, he used a peak limiter aimed at -1dB, so when and if they were ever transcoded to a lossy format, those new files would not clip. Nothing was ever clipped!

Almost always a conversion to mp3 will make the files clip when they are close or pushing up against 0dB. What I'm seeing is a controlled peak level, getting rid of some transients that add nothing to the music. Sure, he could have skipped this, but there's evidence suggesting that by using a peak limiter you are actually increasing the dynamics of the piece. I've linked that article previously on the forums and I'll try to find it again.

The loudness of most new music is happening before this step anyway, the the multitracks being mastered too hot to begin with. A piece that is mixed well, say with a subtle yet present bass, and a very forward vocalist will sound louder, but still in balance relative to one another if a good mix is peak limited at the end before being laid to the delivery format. Now if the bass track is already really loud, and mixed with a really loud vocalist, and really loud drums, then it all sound the same and no matter if the waveform looks like the 1988 masterings above. It's all in the mix.

Also, the term "dynamic range" as we are trying to use it inaccurate, as it doesn't apply to what people are claiming it does, brickwalled music specifically. Dynamic Range is noise floor to loudest possible level. A CD is capable of 96dB of dynamic range, from it's absolute noise floor, to the loudest level possible. That's it. Loudness Range is a better descriptor of what we are looking at, the lower levels of a track, the subtle singing of Elizabeth Fraser here, from the louder guitar and and drums of the rest of the piece. That's closer to the measurement we are after. This is referred to as LU. Since I have both versions of this song, I went ahead and opened both in Izotope to see what happens.

The difference between the LU in the 1988 vs. the remaster is this respectively: 4.3dB, and 3.6dB. Less than 1dB of difference, even with how "squashed" everyone says the Guthrie remasters are.

I'm inserting a quote from a site I looked up real fast about loudness range for a little perspective:

You might have guessed that Loudness Range relates to the dynamics of your audio, but how can we use this measurement to help achieve our musical goals?

Definition of loudness range: Loudness Range [Measured in LU (loudness Units)] will tell you the statistical measure of loudness variation of your entire track. This long-term reading will give you an idea of the difference in volume between the verse, chorus and other sections of your track.

If there is a big difference in loudness between the various sections of your track then your loudness range will be a higher number.
A loudness range between 6 LU to 12 LU shows that a track has a considerable difference in loudness between the various sections.

Tracks with a loudness range below 4 LU could be considered rather static in loudness.

As a general rule, I would recommend aiming for a Loudness Range above 5 LU if you wanted to create a track with tension, release and an epic chorus that explodes out of the verse. But this suggestion can be taken with a pinch of salt! If you’re aiming to create a track with a consistent energy throughout then, of course, you would end up with a lower loudness range.

Loudness Range isn’t like true peaks where most people can agree that clipping doesn’t sound good. Loudness range is subjective and totally depends on the material you’re working on.

Tutorial - In Music Mastering What Is Loudness Range? | Pro Tools

From the above definition, this track was already not a very dynamic track! But does it sound good? Does the remaster "really" sound worse? Does the use of a limiter really destroy the dynamics of the piece? I personally thing the whole "loudness wars" is overhyped, and what the problem really is, is low loudness range to begin with, and low crest factor. This is why Death Magnetic is such a dismal sounding album.

I'll stop for now because without my link from a few months ago about crest factor, I'm missing a few pieces. But you get the idea.

 

Very much agreed!

 

I have this one and it's a little compressed but it's not a bad listen.

 

Thanks for the added info, appreciated. Matching the volume, yes I could tell the difference. I went back to Blue Bell this morning. I couldn't detect any eq differences but the remaster sounded 'smeared'. I realize we're talking about the Twins here, not audiophile in the recording sense I suffer from listening fatigue with the remasters. Something just seems off with the one's I have. Luckily we have choices with our favorites

 

Hi! .

Could anyone tell me more about that Station to station PCD1-1327 is that actually mastered too low as it's rumoured?

Kind regards