On Oct 9, 7:55 am, khug...@nospam.net wrote:
> UC wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 11:19 pm, allen <n...@this.one> wrote:

[ Excess quoting snipped. -- dsr ]


> > I have several CD releases/remasters of material that I owned on LP.
> > These include Ian Matthews (Hit and Run/Go for Broke), Genesis (Trick
> > of the Tail), Dire Straights (Dire Straights, Love Over Gold), Moody
> > Blues (Days of Future Passed) Beatles (Sgt Pepper).
>
> > I owned Dire Straights on domestic and Japanese vinyl, Beatles on
> > British and Dutch vinyl, Genesis on British vinyl, and Ian Mathews on
> > domestic Columbia vinyl, and Moody Blues on both domestic and British
> > vinyl. My LP setup over the years employed several cartridges (Ortofon
> > MC20/MCA-76, Dynavector Ruby, Stax CPY-2 or whatever t was called) in
> > a Magnepan arm and Thorens TD125 Mk II table. I had Rogers Studio 1
> > speakers which I recently replaced with Yamaha NS-1000. The system was
> > not overly bright at any time. My CD player is a Sony CDP-508ESD (I
> > own 2 of them). I use Monster cables. Power amp is Denon POA-1500 Mk
> > II.
>
> > The Moody Blues and Dire Straights remasters are superior to the
> > original CD releases. All the others are far worse. The Ian Matthews
> > was never released on domestically by Columbia on CD. It was released
> > by BGO out of Britain. The Moody Blues and Dire Straights CDs are
> > very good. All the rest are harsh, bright, piercing and tonally
> > unbalanced. I am fed up!
>
> Well, clearly your experience differs from mine. As for Genesis, I had
> British LPs of Trick of The Tail, Winds and Wuthering, and Selling
> England By The Pound. Without exception, the British LP versions were
> superior to the first release CD's. Also without exception, the CD
> remasters are far superior to the British LP's. YMMV of course, but
> that's the point.
>
> Keith Hughes

No, the remaster of Trick of the tail, at least, is nothing remotely
like the British Charisma LP. Way too bright, too much sibilance, etc.
The original Charisma CD is excellent, very similar to the LP.

On 8 Oct 2009 22:26:51 GMT, Jenn <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> UC <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
>> WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
>> it's HORRID!
>>
>> Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!
>
>Mmmm...I very much disagree. I think that these are easily the best
>sounding CD Beatles releases.

ditto. Same with the Stones remasters of several years ago.

"Edmund" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)
> "glenbadd" <(E-Mail Removed)> schreef in bericht
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Oct 8, 11:34=A0pm, "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>
>> An optimization required for CD is that none of the
>> peaks exceed the range of the ADC. Good CDs will never
>> reach the magic 0dB. Unfortunately I have many popular
>> CDs that are mastered such that there cann be hundreds
>> of 0dB peaks (with square tops on the waveforms) on
>> every track, as highlighted in red by loading ripped WAV
>> tracks into Audacity. The dreaded Loudness Wars!

>> G.
> Are you sure? That seems extremely odd to me since
> avoiding clipping is a very basic requirement for digital
> recording.

People engaged in the "loudness wars" have been flouting the usual
prohibitions against clipping for at least a decade.

> I am not familiar with Audacity but I happen to know that
> at least some programs show a wave as a straight line
> between the samples instead of rebuilding the proper wave
> form.

If Audacity or Audition, or CoolEdit Pro show clipping, there was no doubt
clipping.

> Therefore it may look like a square wave or top but
> in reality it isn't.

If there are a row of samples right up against or parallel to FS, it is some
kind of clipping.

> Do you have a title of such a CD for me?

http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicdeath.htm

Amy Grant - Heart In Motion (A&M 75021 5321 2)

"Alas, in the highly competitive pop music world, something had to give; who
was first to do it may be lost to history, but by this time, the trend
towards the reduction of the CD's quality and dynamic range had already
begun. In this particular case, not only do many songs on the CD reach
maximum peak level, a number of these peaks in each song are also
"clipped" -- an instance where the top and/or bottom of the waveform has
been "flat-topped" or "hacked off" because it ran into the brick wall known
as the 100% / 0 dB limit.
This is evident by looking at the waveform graph of Track 3:
"

This is BTW the third "hit" in a google search that took me about 10 seconds
to do. If I was serious about doing my homework... ;-)

Serge Auckland <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "UC" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
> >> > WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
> >> > it's HORRID!
> >> > Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!
> >> > Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.
> >>
> >> They didn't use master tapes EQ'd for LP. Nor would one need to apply
> >> the RIAA EQ if they did. RIAA EQ is applied automatically during cutting
> >> and 'reversed' during playback of LP. A master tape 'EQ'd for LP' -- a
> >> 'production master' -- does not refer to the RIAA EQ, it refers to any
> >> mastering moves applied manually, not automatically, at the cutting stage
> >> by the cutting/mastering engineer after the original master tape has been
> >> made,
> >> to accomodate various limitations of LP. RIAA EQ is applied
> >> automatically
> >> 'on top of' that.
> >>
> >> --
> >> -S
> >> We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine
> >
> > Then how do you explain the near-universal overly bright bass-shy
> > remasters?
> >
> Very poor quality mastering. If RIAA EQ had really been misapplied, the
> extreme top would be some 40dB above the extreme bass, and I don't think any
> modern CD is quite that bad. What I've heard seems to apply a sort of
> "smiley" EQ curve, boom and tizz in effect.

Smiley EQ mean accented bass and treble, uranium man reports 'near universal'
LACK of bass coupled with high frequency boost (which isn't my experience,
btw, though smiley EQ seems common enough).


--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

Edmund <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> "glenbadd" <(E-Mail Removed)> schreef in bericht
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > On Oct 8, 11:34=A0pm, "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > An optimization required for CD is that none of the peaks exceed the
> > range of the ADC. Good CDs will never reach the magic 0dB.
> > Unfortunately I have many popular CDs that are mastered such that
> > there cann be hundreds of 0dB peaks (with square tops on the
> > waveforms) on every track, as highlighted in red by loading ripped WAV
> > tracks into Audacity. The dreaded Loudness Wars!
> >
> > G.
> Are you sure? That seems extremely odd to me since avoiding clipping
> is a very basic requirement for digital recording.


LOLing a little bit here, not at you personally, but at the sad
state of digital audio, given the premise, and promise, of the
new digital era circa 1982..

Yes, one would THINK that a hard limit of 0dBFS with a dynamic
range of 96 dB would be plenty, but nooooo...
instead of just encouraging people to TURN IT UP if they want to hear it
louder, the industry decided that they would make the CDs 'dummy proof'
buy coding the loudness right into the CD...forever. It's the
old FM radio (and recording) trick of 'limiting' and 'compressing'
to make things 'pop', taken to extemes that only digital can enable.


> I am not familiar with Audacity but I happen to know that at least some
> programs show a wave as a straight line between the samples instead of
> rebuilding the proper wave form. Therefore it may look like a square
> wave or top but in reality it isn't.
> Do you have a title of such a CD for me?

Dozens if not hundreds. Look up 'loudness wars' and chances are
you;ll see, for example, waveform graphics of "Californication'
by the Red Hot Chili Peppers, or 'Vapor Trails' by Rush or
"Death magnetic" by Metallica, which tend to be the poster children.

Heck, you even see it on some classical releases:

http://audiamorous.blogspot.com/search/label/classical

This is not an 'audicity' type artifact.




--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> UC wrote:
> > On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> Almost without exception, the "remastered" CDs I have bought sounded
> >>> WORSE than the original releases. I just got the new Sgt. Peppers and
> >>> it's HORRID!
> >>> Shrill, lacking bass...just terrible!
> >>> Seems like RIAA EQ was not applied to master tape EQ'd for LP.
> >> They didn't use master tapes EQ'd for LP. Nor would one need to apply
> >> the RIAA EQ if they did. RIAA EQ is applied automatically during cutting
> >> and 'reversed' during playback of LP. A master tape 'EQ'd for LP' -- a
> >> 'production master' -- does not refer to the RIAA EQ, it refers to any
> >> mastering moves applied manually, not automatically, at the cutting stage
> >> by the cutting/mastering engineer after the original master tape has been made,
> >> to accomodate various limitations of LP. RIAA EQ is applied automatically
> >> 'on top of' that.
> >>
> >> --
> >> -S
> >> We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine
> >
> > Then how do you explain the near-universal overly bright bass-shy
> > remasters?

> "Near-universal" is a *vast* overstatement IME. With a few exceptions,
> all of the remasters I've purchased have had significantly better
> dynamics than the originals (mostly all early '90s vintage), and if
> anything were less bright and forward sounding. I probably only have
> about 50 or so remasters (for which I have the original CD release) so
> that's not a huge sample size, but clearly if the problem was endemic,
> as you claim, I would have to have found many more than I have.

> Most of the recordings that I've replaced were apparently not optimized
> for CD originally (like most in the early 90's IME) in the rush to
> release them to market, with some even being clearly inferior to my LP
> copies at the time. All of the remastered CD's I've purchased, however,
> are significantly better (IMO of course) to their LP counterparts.

Actually the early 90s might be the golden age, as it was in the midst of
the *FIRST* wave of remasters, where MEs were going back to original
master tapes rather than LP production masters,
but not yet overdoing compression (noise reduction was still
applied too aggressively sometimes though).

Remasters since 1995 or so have often has *less* dynamic range than those, IME.

--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

UC wrote:
> On Oct 9, 7:55 am, khug...@nospam.net wrote:
>> UC wrote:
>>> On Oct 7, 11:19 pm, allen <n...@this.one> wrote:
>

<snip>

>> Well, clearly your experience differs from mine. As for Genesis, I had
>> British LPs of Trick of The Tail, Winds and Wuthering, and Selling
>> England By The Pound. Without exception, the British LP versions were
>> superior to the first release CD's. Also without exception, the CD
>> remasters are far superior to the British LP's. YMMV of course, but
>> that's the point.
>>
>> Keith Hughes
>
> No,

In your opinion...

> the remaster of Trick of the tail, at least, is nothing remotely
> like the British Charisma LP.

Are you talking about the Charisma remaster, or the ATCO remaster? I
don't know that they are the same.

> Way too bright, too much sibilance, etc.
> The original Charisma CD is excellent, very similar to the LP.

Never heard the original Charisma CD, just the ATCO version released in
the US. And again "...nothing remotely like..." is another *vast*
overstatement IMO and IME. And you'll note that I said absolutely
nothing about the remaster sounding like the LP. I said <the ATCO
remastered> version I own is clearly superior IMO to the Charisma LP.
Not at all the same claim.

Keith Hughes

Steven Sullivan wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> UC wrote:
>>> On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Actually the early 90s might be the golden age, as it was in the midst of
> the *FIRST* wave of remasters, where MEs were going back to original
> master tapes rather than LP production masters,
> but not yet overdoing compression (noise reduction was still
> applied too aggressively sometimes though).
>
> Remasters since 1995 or so have often has *less* dynamic range than those, IME.
>

Likely you are correct. Looking back at my old stuff, most of the CDs I
was discussing were late 80's. The remasters were done 1994. The
cobwebs thicken...

Keith Hughes

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Steven Sullivan wrote:
>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>> UC wrote:
>>>> On Oct 6, 11:23 pm, Steven Sullivan <ssu...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Actually the early 90s might be the golden age, as it was in the midst of
>> the *FIRST* wave of remasters, where MEs were going back to original
>> master tapes rather than LP production masters,
>> but not yet overdoing compression (noise reduction was still
>> applied too aggressively sometimes though).
>>
>> Remasters since 1995 or so have often has *less* dynamic range than
>> those, IME.
>>
>
> Likely you are correct. Looking back at my old stuff, most of the CDs I
> was discussing were late 80's. The remasters were done 1994. The
> cobwebs thicken...
>
> Keith Hughes
>

Look for an article in IEEE spectrum within the last 2 years about the
change in mastering technique, and specifically the elimination of virtually
all dynamic range on "modern" CDs - this will perhaps illuminate the issue

On Oct 9, 11:05=A0pm, "Edmund" <nom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Are you sure? That seems extremely odd to me since avoiding clipping
> is a very basic requirement for digital recording.
> I am not familiar with Audacity but I happen to know that at least some
> programs show a wave as a straight line between the samples instead of
> rebuilding the proper wave form. Therefore it may look like a square
> wave or top but in reality it isn't.
> Do you have a title of such a CD for me?
>
> Edmund

Yes, it is a basic requirement, but some mastering engineers seem to
ignore it. In audacity, find a peak and keep zooming
in on it until individual samples are shown. Its easy to spot a series
of
samples that flat line at maximum possible +ve or -ve value.
Yet other discs do not even approach the max, even by 6db, essentially
throwing away 1 of 16 bits of resolution.

> Do you have a title of such a CD for me?

Most recent one noticed, +ve flatline for 6 samples on first
crash cymbal in Dire Straits - Communique (remastered
issue CD 800 052-2) - Track 1 - Once upon a time in the west
at 26.21919 seconds. The next one is 7 samples +ve flatline
on a loud guitar riff at 59.194469 seconds.

A really bad example is Audioslave - Revelations - track 1
- Revelations. It +ve and -ve flat lines on every snare drum
beat in the entire 4:10 track. The rest of the album is similar.
Audioslave are a heavy rock band, so its not surprising
they succumed to the loudness wars.