Re-mastering...Is it really as bad as we think?

For the record, the Roxy remasters circa 1999 are Bob Ludwig's work, not Bob Clearmountain. Anyway, IMHO, they sound amazing and are reference-level CDs for this listener (along with Bryan Ferry's solo output which is also from '99 and Ludwig's work)...

 

I'm surprised no one has mentioned it so far, but one way of judging if compression and/or limiting was applied to some releases is if it has less dynamic range/is more compressed compared to a previous issue (AND is from the same mix). Obviously this only applies if something has been released more than once with different mastering at least one of those times.

 

Oops. In my defense, let me just say that the Roxy Remasters I have are the mini-LP replications, which have no credits regarding the reissues. I was working from a memory that has obviously seen better days.

 

It sounds like you're a Roxy/Ferry fan. I only have a few of the remasters and they happen to be the albums I liked least by the group... I didn't feel like rebuying the lion's share of their/his catalogue that I already owned on CD. I think they sound good too and indeed, they are very loud.

But to me, they also sound "different" enough from the original albums that I would assume many people on this forum would cry "foul!" Is it just that Ludwig did a better job using the modern tools of the trade, which includes compression?

 

I'm one of the few people here who actually like slightly bright mixes, so I tend to prefer a lot of remasters that most Hoffmanites don't. I've been in the recording industry for over 20 years and I've made a lot of stupid mistakes early on (using dbx NR - yikes!), but I still like my mixes bright and that's why the artists who hire me, hire me. I suppose you could compare it to someone who likes the sound of fresh, bright acoustic guitar strings or duller, broken-in strings, etc. Sometimes it's all up to personal preference, as long as it sounds good...

 

HEY!!! I worked for dbx in the 80's, be nice The professional version could yield some great results.....I still have 20-30 albums encoded with dbx that are among the best-sounding vinyl I own...but there were some, ummm, issues with the home-owner version. I agree with you, listening preferences are very personal, what is too-bright for some, is perfect for others. I started this thread hoping to get a few responses, and look how its grown.

Do you have an opinion on the whole "maximizing" issue? Lately, I've been reading reviews on some contemporary releases (Chaos and Creation) archival (Bangladesh) and re-issues (The Byrds and Mike Nesmith) where members say each CD is slightly maximized. Do you hear this? Do you think this affects the sound quality at all? I know some members print out wave forms that seem to show this, but is it audible? I'm not talking about something maximized to to the point of clipping....but what some refer to as "a bit of maximizing" Hope to read your responses. Ron

 

In my experience, not all of them. Some, like the Tommy deluxe edition, is the best-sounding version of the ENTIRE original mix (the much-liked MFSL issue and the 1993 MCA CD which came before the current remixed single-CD issue contains an alternate mix of "Eyesight For The Blind") - whereas the original CD edition of that same title was mastered carelessly from a craptacular dub of a dub of a dub of a dub (and so forth) of the master tape.

 

Good point ..though my undersetanding is that technically it *would* be possible to have different DR if just the *noise* characteristics changed. Because although we commonly take a measure of DR by using the crest factor (diff between average and peak levels) DR is really the diff between the loudest and quietest part of the recording. If CD two had a higher noise floor than CD one, and the peak levels were the same, it would have a lower dynamic range by that definition.

 

I'm not sure what 'slightly maximized' would mean....it's like 'jumbo shrimp'. I suppose you could 'maximize' a wave by compressing and limiting it until it looked like a solid brick of sound (like that Vida Loca clip above). I'm not sure eveyone here means the same thing -- nor how they could be sure of what has been done, just by listening.

 

I completey agree with you. It was always my supposition that one could not tell if a certain CD was maximized, unless you had heard the master tapes. Basically, it seems some members claim a CD is maximized if its loud... I too, think "slightly maximized" is not the proper term. Thanks, Ron

 

Back in the '80's, I did a bunch of analog 8 & 16 track projects with dbx 150s, and although the overall sound is good, I still cringe when I hear that tell-tale "puffy breathing" on the quieter passages.

Which Byrds and Nesmith CDs are you referring to?

 

Hi,
Yea, I know the breathing issues with dbx...sometimes it was very much audible, other times it was quiet as could be. We had more luck with digital recordings than with analogue....classical recordings and jazz usually worked best. The CD's that some forum members have termed " a bit maximized" include Nesmith's First National Band Cd's on the Awareness label, from the late 80's, early 90's??. The Byrds CD's mentioned were Byrdmaniax and Farther ALong CBS, re-mastered versions. Ron

 

To some degree all of us non-professionals here may be talking out of our bottoms (I know I am) but it’s pretty easy to identify a remaster that’s been dramatically compressed and EQ’d. As a hobbiest who tinkers with music on the PC, I’m attuned to the sound of compressed mastering and sometimes when I hear a really loud CD where the quiet passages have an undeniable innayouface presence, I’ll upload a track out of curiosity just to see how radically they’ve compressed the puppy. It’s not uncommon to find tracks that weigh-in at an average output of -7.0 or -8.0 dB, but there are some that get up to -4.0 dB, -3.8 dB with ½-inch wide clipped plateaus at every shaved-off peak… really compressed. And I’m not talking about speed metal albums here.

When I put together a mixed disc I give a lot of attention to normalizing the output levels of the various tracks and I sometimes venture into compression - I’ll even pull out some crude “remastering” tricks to maintain a consistency of sonic density across a disc. As an example, I recently put together a pastoral-psych-folk-rock mix, US and UK artists. I segued John Renbourne’s Back On The Road Again from Faro Annie after a track from the Relatively Clean Rivers album. I ended up compressing the Renbourne track and then backing-off -1.0 dB to get it on an even sonic field with the RCR track and the Jorma Kaukonen that followed (as well as the rest of the disc). But even then, the beginning of the song just sounded weak and was being swamped by the fade from RCR. So I normalized the solo acoustic intro to an even higher level, dropping back down when the ensemble kicked-in. I mean, I basically destroyed the dynamics that the artist had created, but in the context of the mix it sounded fine to my ears (well, better honestly) and it wouldn’t have worked on the disc without the muscle-building exercise.

I’ve done the opposite too. I like the Lovin’ Spoonful’s version of Fred Neil’s Other Side of This Life, but the bass figure is so loud at the intro, drops a couple of dB when the guitar joins in and then drops a few more dB when the rest of the band hits it. It’s just too heavy-handed and I found it distracting, so I lowered the output in two steps on those intro sections and it sounds a lot more natural.

But hey, I’m not the president of a major label and I’m not foisting these things off on the unwitting consumer.

 

Don't worry, GuyE, i'm gradually moving into the "whatever works" camp. Some people are so kosher in their mastering of CD-Rs that they don't even believe in adjusting levels. I have also used things like compression. I really don't use EQ, though.

 

I'm certainly not worried about it... no knashing of teeth going on here.

 

Yes.

 

you just have to listen to that black triangle and decide for yourself.

over compression can ruin a person's enjoyment of a recording to which they've grown accustomed to hearing with wide-range dynamics from a lifetime of listening.

suddenly in the case of some newer remasters that dynamic range has been greatly reduced through excessive compression added in the remastering process so that what is now being heard is no longer what the listener has known and loved about that recording from years of familiarity.

No one wants what they loved about their favourite record to be wiped away from the listening experience. that is why they will pay more money to have it back the way they liked it before it was messed up.

 

Remastering is a marketing word and means nothing. You could take the entire album, compress it very slightly, and bingo! It's remastered.

 

Definitely worthwhile to re-open a 15 year old thread so we could get this response

 

YES... same same for BEGGARS BANQUET 50th ANNIVERSARY CD...

 

(15 year old thread reopened)

Sure, I'll bite.....

No

 

The remastered CDs sound and are miles better quality than those old LPs, cassettes and Singles.

 

No
If done tastefully

 

Yeesh. This thread was started back when I didn't have one gray hair, smoked a pack a day and was always full of energy.

Then in 2013, I signed up for this forum and, coincidentally, my health started to slowly decline.

Edit: I might be in the wrong thread. Festivus hasn't ended under my roof.