Paul Simon's Graceland remaster

Hi all,

Yesterday I received the remastered Paul Simon cd's. Couldn't wait to compare my favorite album Graceland to my original 1986 cd. My first impression was 'wow, what a improvement'. But after listening and comparing for one day, I'm not really sure any more.

The new sound is very 'in your face', much more direct than the original. Listen to the start of Diamonds and you know what I mean. Sometimes it seems a curtain is lifted which seems to reveal more detail (background voices on Graceland or instruments on That was your mother for example). On other tracks the sound and especially Paul's voice seems a little bit harsher than before. A little more fatigueing. Overall I think that's not directly more detail but the sound seems just cleaner.

What I really don't like is the new cd sounding THAT much louder. Why why why. My volume pot is about 2 dB per click, and the new cd sounds a little over 3 clicks louder. What supprises me also is the fatter bassline on almost all tracks, Diamonds again a good example. How come? Some kind of EQ on the remaster?

Did some measuring on the 2 cd's to check (You can call me Al). The new cd is in fact about 7 dB louder than the old one. And seems more compressed.

http://www.jonkers.net/audio/old_waveformstatistics.jpg (!)
http://www.jonkers.net/audio/new_waveformstatistics.jpg (!)
http://www.jonkers.net/audio/old_waveformdata.jpg
http://www.jonkers.net/audio/new_waveformdata.jpg
http://www.jonkers.net/audio/old_amplitude.jpg
http://www.jonkers.net/audio/new_amplitude.jpg

Then there's the extra bassline, clearly visable in these pictures:

http://www.jonkers.net/audio/old_frequencyanalysis.jpg
http://www.jonkers.net/audio/new_frequencyanalysis.jpg

Sonicly speaking I was impressed at first, but after listening some more I really think I prefer the original cd for it easy-on-the-ears sound.

Just my 2c

Ralph

 

Good points Ralph, but overall I like the extra transparency I get from the new version. I found the older version personally to be soft. It does seem bright in places.

Unfortunately I am not surprised by the ongoing trend of compression.

Louder is not necessarily bad if the dynamic range is preserved but often this is not the case. Sometimes louder is a result of more quieter backgrounds and better original source material.

 

I Like It!

 

Ooohh sounds like the dreaded "maximizing technique" at work here. Lots of volume, virtually no dynamic range. Perfect formula for a headache!

PS Wecome to the forum Ralph.

 

I think the new Graceland still has dynamic range however.

 

The new one sounds great to me.

 

My ears are my final judge, but the waveforms don't make me want to run right out and buy the remaster. The new average RMS value isn't as high as I've seen it, and the new waveform isn't a full buzz-cut, but the compression is clearly squeezing the life out of the dynamic range. An album like this one definitely needs room to breathe, dynamically speaking.

 

I don't have the old disc to compare with, but I too have noticed something slightly out-of-whack with the three remasters I have. The tonality is great, but there's something unnatural in the overall sound that I can't put my finger on. It probably has somethign to do with the compression that Ralph pointed out.

 

I like them. As far as its peers go, it's reasonably controlled. It's almost impossible to stop the loudness juggernaut, so I'll take this as a concession.

 

I finally received all my Paul Simon remasters from BMG -- sans BMG barcodes, so you know they're identical to the store issues -- and I have to agree with Ralph Jonkers and ivor: something's not right with these remasters.

Personally, I objected most strongly to the remaster of RHYTHM OF THE SAINTS, perhaps because as my favorite Paul Simon album it was the one with which I was most familiar. The remastering does provide more detail, but in a glaring, relentless way that seems to push everything up front. Sibilants seem excessively emphasized, and -- to borrow UK audiophile terminology -- the music had no pulse or flow. Simon's always had a relaxed vocal presentation to complement his conversational style, but here his singing seemed overemphasized, as if mixed too forward or miked too close.

 

Boy. I see the dogpile starting fast here. Wasn't everyone praising these earlier in the year?

 

Of the Paul Simon remasters I have purchased, I find the remasters to be very well executed. I am pleased...

Bob

 

These two waveform comparisons between old and new said a lot.

BTW, welcome to the forums, Ralph.

 

No breath = no life. That's a very sad representation of anything Paul Simon has recorded. :thumbsdn: I'll be keeping my RCA pressing thanks.

 

Waveforms do not tell the whole story. This is a 1886 CD that is probably peaking 3 db BELOW maximum level. As most cds do from that time.
I see PLENTY of long waveform excursions in the new one. If it was truly maximized to death it would look like a 2x4 . It does not. It is not about what it looks like,What does it sound like?

 

I don't have the new CD, but I remember finding the previous US CD somewhat underwhelming sonically. Just kinda dull and blah sounding for lack of a better term, though I haven't played it in a while. My JPN LP (mastered in the US at Sterling) sounded much better. I remember someone previously posting that they thought the new CD was even better than the LP (though I was a bit surprised by that since I thought the vinyl was excellent and would be pretty tough to beat, and all else being equal I prefer vinyl). I may have to pick up the new disc.

 

You are right, waveforms do not tell the whole story, but look at the peaks on the original waveform...those all have been clipped down and compressed to the same level as the medium levels by the maximizing, equalizing, and compression. That has to have some negative effect on the dynamics at least. To me the new waveform resembles a Beatles Capitol Records Dexterized track, or maybe worse.

 

A 1886 CD???

sorry, couldn´t resist!

 

I almost couldn't either, but deleted at the last moment.

 

So many people so many opinions My opinion of the reissue quality is not based on the measurements although I'm glad to see they basicly show what I thought I was hearing

Maybe the most revealing track on Graceland is Homeless because one can focus on the voices without having to deal with all them instruments. The original track sounds wonderfull imho. Maybe with some tiny tiny bit of enhanced transparency it would be ideal. The voices timbres are believable, the room reverb seems authentic and Paul's voice is pleasent to listen to.

When I compare that track to the new cd on first listen (levels matched) it seems more detailed and transparent. But I don't hear more detail, it's just more in your face. And because the sound is so much more upfront it's not only less pleasent to listen to but essentially it reveils LESS detail because one's attention is drawn to the main voices. Background voices are less apparent this way imo. Paul's voice has got some bright edge on it I don't like either. It makes me turn the volume down. And is it me or did they add some extra reverb on the track?

This is great music folks, in fact one of my all time favorites. In 18 years time D/A converters MUST be able to produce a better sounding cd than in 1986. There was no reason to fiddle with the EQ to make me buy this album again.

Now I stop wh..... and start listening again!

Ralph

 

When my parents bought our first CD-Player around the time when Graceland was released I think it was dealt as the best sounding CD. I remember it being something like a reference for how a CD should sound on a good stereo system. I haven't listened to it for a while - probably two or three years - so I can't really tell from memory how I feel that it sounds now. But how can things change so drastically? I mean, it was something like the best CD ever 18 years ago - and now they have to "improve" in a way that from looking at the waveforms alone can make you suspect - well, something fatal ...?

Do listening habits really change so much over the years?

 

Hmmh, do you mean A/D converters? And if so, wasn't Graceland digitally recorded? I think I heard Paul Simon say something like this. It was a little sensation back then as far as I remember. So, no A/D converters needed during mastering of analogue material? Am I wrong? Did I misunderstand something??

 

A/D indeed

From the original cd: "The music on this Compact Disc was originally recorded on analog equipment. We have attempted to preserve, as closely as possible, the sound of the original recording. Because of its high resolution, however, the Compact Disc can reveal limitations of the source tape."

I only mentioned the A/D converter because I can really well understand that there is a valid sound-reason for reissueing this cd (18 years of A/D evolution).

 

If I recall, GRACELAND was, briefly, the bestselling CD yet manufactured, which was probably more a reflection of Paul Simon's somewhat better-heeled fanbase than anything else; at the time, CD players were still somewhat exotic. But, yes, the album was a big deal as a demo disc.

I still think that GRACELAND was probably the greatest pop comeback this side of Elvis Presley. Aerosmith's second wind was even more financially successful, though not necessarily an artistic renaissance like Simon's.

 

I never saw it referred to as a reference CD back then , certainly not the "best CD ever" (that title usually went to The Nightfly). Most reviews were underwhelmed by it & preferreed the vinyl. BTW, I FAR prefer the remaster (or the same cuts on the Paul Simon box set--anything but that original CD). Its' use as a demo disc was due to the fact that it was one of the few releases of actual NEW material to surface on CD at that early point in the life of the CD (most releases were reissues of catalog stuff).