Freakin' Remasters!
Posted by: J.N. on 31 January 2011
I've just received a standard original USA CD of the classic 1976 'Boston' album, and man, it pisses on the remaster I also have.
I watched a film last night which covered a recording session of a band in a studio, and at the end the engineer said - "Right, let's go out in the car and do the carrot test". In other words, let's see if we can hook the punters with a Lo-Fi sound. This seems to be the primary concern of the recording companies now, and us poor saps have to put paraffin in our Aston Martins.
For the first time in forty years of Hi-Fi ownership, the source is material is almost making it not worth owning a good system for newly produced music. What a crazy state of affairs.
John.
I watched a film last night which covered a recording session of a band in a studio, and at the end the engineer said - "Right, let's go out in the car and do the carrot test". In other words, let's see if we can hook the punters with a Lo-Fi sound. This seems to be the primary concern of the recording companies now, and us poor saps have to put paraffin in our Aston Martins.
For the first time in forty years of Hi-Fi ownership, the source is material is almost making it not worth owning a good system for newly produced music. What a crazy state of affairs.
John.
Posted on: 31 January 2011 by JamieL_v2
Led Zeppelin and Rush remasters are regularly castigated here.
People should do a wavform grab of new albums, and if the material is not up to standard, return the disc.
A rather shocking image of the last Metallica albums wave was posted here a couple of years ago. There are reasons other than the dynamic range that would prevent me from buying a Metallica album, but even so, that would have gone back if I had parted with cash for a such a sub MP3 sounding piece of mush.
People should do a wavform grab of new albums, and if the material is not up to standard, return the disc.
A rather shocking image of the last Metallica albums wave was posted here a couple of years ago. There are reasons other than the dynamic range that would prevent me from buying a Metallica album, but even so, that would have gone back if I had parted with cash for a such a sub MP3 sounding piece of mush.
Posted on: 31 January 2011 by Ron Toolsie
I wonder how much the inferiority of some remasters is due to inevitable ageing of the master tapes. I would expect that Bostons album was first mastered for CD circa 1986. A 2010 remaster may be using superior technology on tapes that have an additional quarter of a century of miles on their clock. Or with the passage of time the master tapes may no longer be readily available and some inferior tenth-generation ones were used instead.
But it that was purely the case, there should be no way that some jazz albums mastered of tapes from the late 50s should sound as good as they do.
I feel the truth has more to do with record companies trying to find creative ways of getting the same people to buy the same music in the same format multiple times. Certainly bonus tracks and added sleeve notes can spur some of these purchases, as can allegedly better sound through remastering- although the number of people who would buy newer versions for audio sound quality if they already had the older ones would be relatively small. Most people are not audiophiles, nor have the remotest idea of what a decent system can sound like.
In a way the 'newly remastered from the original master tapes in 24bit resolution' hype smacks of the half-speed mastering bandwagon that many companies jumped on in the late 70s or the me-too Goldisk CDs 15 years later.
But it that was purely the case, there should be no way that some jazz albums mastered of tapes from the late 50s should sound as good as they do.
I feel the truth has more to do with record companies trying to find creative ways of getting the same people to buy the same music in the same format multiple times. Certainly bonus tracks and added sleeve notes can spur some of these purchases, as can allegedly better sound through remastering- although the number of people who would buy newer versions for audio sound quality if they already had the older ones would be relatively small. Most people are not audiophiles, nor have the remotest idea of what a decent system can sound like.
In a way the 'newly remastered from the original master tapes in 24bit resolution' hype smacks of the half-speed mastering bandwagon that many companies jumped on in the late 70s or the me-too Goldisk CDs 15 years later.
Posted on: 31 January 2011 by JamieL_v2
Mostly it seems to be normalizing the sound to lift the low volume parts of the sound, and boosting the bass and treble to make it sound brash.
On a transistor radio it does improve the sound, but on anything better it just makes it hard to listen to, and loses detail and dynamics.
More than the master tapes degrading, it can often be the hearing of musicians who have subjected their ears to many years to 30kW, or louder, sound systems on the live circuit. That was the conclusion of many Led Zeppelin fans to Jimmy Page's remasters done with the help(?) of George Marino.
On a transistor radio it does improve the sound, but on anything better it just makes it hard to listen to, and loses detail and dynamics.
More than the master tapes degrading, it can often be the hearing of musicians who have subjected their ears to many years to 30kW, or louder, sound systems on the live circuit. That was the conclusion of many Led Zeppelin fans to Jimmy Page's remasters done with the help(?) of George Marino.
Posted on: 31 January 2011 by Alamanka
Does the sound quality really matter with Rock music?
None of the instruments are acoustic and the electric guitars are distorted anyway.
Intuitively, it does not surprise me too much that Rock sounds better on a cheap system...
For people who like Rock, it is a good news: the next upgrade is a downgrade.
Quite cost effective...
Down this road, the last upgrade is no system at all.
Enjoy the silence, at last!
None of the instruments are acoustic and the electric guitars are distorted anyway.
Intuitively, it does not surprise me too much that Rock sounds better on a cheap system...
For people who like Rock, it is a good news: the next upgrade is a downgrade.
Quite cost effective...
Down this road, the last upgrade is no system at all.
Enjoy the silence, at last!
Posted on: 31 January 2011 by connon price
Does it matter with rock music? Sometimes. I have an old copy of Van Halen's debut and it is a pretty screechy affair on vinyl on a resolving system. I heard the vinyl reissue and it is really nice in comparison. Still rock and roll, for sure, but it doesn't quite tear my ears off now, just boxes them soundly.
For CDs, that is a hard call. It does seem like the majority of them are trying to get maximum detail retrieval and presence but not a well balanced, tuneful, natural rendering. Either there is something happening industry wide with equipment, tastes and/or ears or the new systems are just too resolving of bad things that were happening in the studios of yesteryear. I think I still have my original Dire Straights debut on CD, I should pick up a used (binned) remaster to compare to it. I heard a customer's Making Movies remastered and compared it to my very early CD version. Old CD is much more enjoyable.
Progress: ya gotta be suspicious.
For CDs, that is a hard call. It does seem like the majority of them are trying to get maximum detail retrieval and presence but not a well balanced, tuneful, natural rendering. Either there is something happening industry wide with equipment, tastes and/or ears or the new systems are just too resolving of bad things that were happening in the studios of yesteryear. I think I still have my original Dire Straights debut on CD, I should pick up a used (binned) remaster to compare to it. I heard a customer's Making Movies remastered and compared it to my very early CD version. Old CD is much more enjoyable.
Progress: ya gotta be suspicious.
Posted on: 31 January 2011 by naim_nymph
If record labels were honest they would state clearly on the CD outer sleeves if the material bandwidth has been LOUDED, and people like us could leave well alone and avoid wasting money.
Or perhaps we should complain to Trading Standards… Sale and Supply of Goods Act 1994
a) Implied term about quality.
Can it be proven that a Louded CD is faulty, or lacking in acceptable quality?
b) Acceptance of goods and opportunity to examine them…
Purchased with sealed wrapper on, refused refund later because sealed wrapper has been removed.
How can a CD be test played without breaking the seal on the jewel case?
Trading Standards… Has this been cut and disbanded by the Tory Bankers Party yet?
Perhaps, in this most audiophile of forums we should have a special [sticky] thread called ‘Louded CD Avoid List’ with a reference catalogue of disgracefully engineered CD’s …for avoidance alert.
Would also be useful to have another Pop/Rock CD list that recommends well engineered recordings too.
(Only the best need apply)
Or perhaps forum members should always state (points out of ten) the sound engineering quality of their chosen Pop/Rock CD’s when posting in the threads… “What are you listening to?” & “What was the last CD you bought?”
I’ve not done this with my Classical or Jazz postings because it’s not really necessary but I usually mention it with the Pop/Rock ones.
Debs
Posted on: 01 February 2011 by Richard Dane
I'd like to see more issues like those from Neil young, where you got the CD along with a DVD containing the same music but at a much higher bit-rate. Of course, the NY CDs are pretty good in themselves, but at least this way, everyone can be happy with a compressed CD and an uncompressed DVD.
However, I guess this is now considered old tech. I note that even NY has stopped the CD/DVD issues.
The latest Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers shows more promise; CD for the masses (compressed, although not as bad as many). LP for the 'philes, along with a free Hi-Res uncompressed download. Now, if the free download came with the CD as well, that would be great. Or at least charge a small prfemium for CD and Hi-Res download. Or, even better (for those like me, stuck with mobile broadband or snail speed broadband), a CD along with a Hi-res DVD....
However, I guess this is now considered old tech. I note that even NY has stopped the CD/DVD issues.
The latest Tom Petty and The Heartbreakers shows more promise; CD for the masses (compressed, although not as bad as many). LP for the 'philes, along with a free Hi-Res uncompressed download. Now, if the free download came with the CD as well, that would be great. Or at least charge a small prfemium for CD and Hi-Res download. Or, even better (for those like me, stuck with mobile broadband or snail speed broadband), a CD along with a Hi-res DVD....
Posted on: 01 February 2011 by JamieL_v2
Quote:
Alamanka
AlamankaDoes the sound quality really matter with Rock music?
None of the instruments are acoustic and the electric guitars are distorted anyway.
Intuitively, it does not surprise me too much that Rock sounds better on a cheap system...
For people who like Rock, it is a good news: the next upgrade is a downgrade.
Quite cost effective...
Down this road, the last upgrade is no system at all.
Enjoy the silence, at last!
_____________________________________________________________
It doesn't matter with any music you don't like!
Beyond that, of course it matters with rock. Not all rock is distorted, but even when it is quality of reproduction is important.
Drums are acoustic, and even when not they offer sharp punctuation. Cymbals, voices, bass all need definition.
To hear the playing of someone like Robert Fripp, who often uses very distorted guitar, you need good recordings, and good reproduction, the sound is distorted, but the notes are important.
I am not sure what music you listen to, but I could just as easily say, why bother with quality reproduction for classical music, the individual instruments as not microphoned, it is just some room mics, no different from an audience bootleg.
That statement is just as pointless as the comment about rock.
I can understand the point about a band like Oasis, who want their music to sound 'loud' and brash, and so have deliberately noramized their sound to have high volume all the time and no dynamics, but that is their stupidity, or crass commercialism, but there are other rock musicians who deserve, and demand quality reproduction.
None of the instruments are acoustic and the electric guitars are distorted anyway.
Intuitively, it does not surprise me too much that Rock sounds better on a cheap system...
For people who like Rock, it is a good news: the next upgrade is a downgrade.
Quite cost effective...
Down this road, the last upgrade is no system at all.
Enjoy the silence, at last!
_____________________________________________________________
It doesn't matter with any music you don't like!
Beyond that, of course it matters with rock. Not all rock is distorted, but even when it is quality of reproduction is important.
Drums are acoustic, and even when not they offer sharp punctuation. Cymbals, voices, bass all need definition.
To hear the playing of someone like Robert Fripp, who often uses very distorted guitar, you need good recordings, and good reproduction, the sound is distorted, but the notes are important.
I am not sure what music you listen to, but I could just as easily say, why bother with quality reproduction for classical music, the individual instruments as not microphoned, it is just some room mics, no different from an audience bootleg.
That statement is just as pointless as the comment about rock.
I can understand the point about a band like Oasis, who want their music to sound 'loud' and brash, and so have deliberately noramized their sound to have high volume all the time and no dynamics, but that is their stupidity, or crass commercialism, but there are other rock musicians who deserve, and demand quality reproduction.
Posted on: 01 February 2011 by GraemeH
There really is no excuse. 'Remasters' get away with claiming they are somehow superior when very often they are unlistenable. I've just scoured the net for an original cd issue of 'Hounds of Love', so superior is it to the 'remaster'.
CD is perfectly capable of sounding wonderful. Just try 'This is Stina Nordenstam'......
CD is perfectly capable of sounding wonderful. Just try 'This is Stina Nordenstam'......
Posted on: 01 February 2011 by Alamanka
So there is actually a band called "Oasis"?
I thought it was a water cooler company.
I need to check this out. Thanks.
Anyway, it is true: I am not a connoisseur. Naively I thought Rock was about being a rebel...But even rebels want to have a Naim, I guess.
I thought the idea of Rock was based on the rejection of traditional conventions, a return toward to the raw intensity of expressions and some sort of tribal communion. Hence the repetitive, hypnotic beats and themes, and the loudness.
Apparently some people do critical listening of Rock music. I think it is great.
But I can easily understand the high rate of disappointment.
Going back to the point, the same problem exists with classical music, the remastering or the re-issue of prior recordings is not always very good. But when it comes to new recordings, the quality is much better than in the past.
So for classical music and opera, my impression is that the sound is improving...
I thought it was a water cooler company.
I need to check this out. Thanks.
Anyway, it is true: I am not a connoisseur. Naively I thought Rock was about being a rebel...But even rebels want to have a Naim, I guess.
I thought the idea of Rock was based on the rejection of traditional conventions, a return toward to the raw intensity of expressions and some sort of tribal communion. Hence the repetitive, hypnotic beats and themes, and the loudness.
Apparently some people do critical listening of Rock music. I think it is great.
But I can easily understand the high rate of disappointment.
Going back to the point, the same problem exists with classical music, the remastering or the re-issue of prior recordings is not always very good. But when it comes to new recordings, the quality is much better than in the past.
So for classical music and opera, my impression is that the sound is improving...
Posted on: 01 February 2011 by graham halliwell
John, to be fair, there have always been poor or uninspiring recordings and mastering, and there are still plenty of recordings and genres out there where people really do care.
I think owning a good hi-fi is about getting the best from a recording. Maybe hi-fi is a lucky accident; I guess we have to ask ourselves 'fidelity to what?' I enjoy records for what they are, not as substitutes for the real thing. Most record producers, especially in the rock and pop world, are obsessed with 'getting a sound', not necessarily hi-fidelity (think of the Motown sound for instance).
The 'carrot test' you refer to is old and began with FM, even The Doors were doing this in the late 60's; they'd send a gofer to the local radio station with an acetate to play at a specific time, and the band would cram into their producer's car to hear how the mix was sounding over FM radio. So maybe the quality of radio is to blame for low quality of production and mastering - there is a good argument to support the claim that the 'loudness wars' all began with FM compression.
But I generally sympathise with your current dilemma. Maybe that is why I'm finding myself paying over the odds for first pressings on vinyl; analogue from microphone to loudspeaker, from an era also when people knew how to cut a record...........and make it sound interesting.
I think owning a good hi-fi is about getting the best from a recording. Maybe hi-fi is a lucky accident; I guess we have to ask ourselves 'fidelity to what?' I enjoy records for what they are, not as substitutes for the real thing. Most record producers, especially in the rock and pop world, are obsessed with 'getting a sound', not necessarily hi-fidelity (think of the Motown sound for instance).
The 'carrot test' you refer to is old and began with FM, even The Doors were doing this in the late 60's; they'd send a gofer to the local radio station with an acetate to play at a specific time, and the band would cram into their producer's car to hear how the mix was sounding over FM radio. So maybe the quality of radio is to blame for low quality of production and mastering - there is a good argument to support the claim that the 'loudness wars' all began with FM compression.
But I generally sympathise with your current dilemma. Maybe that is why I'm finding myself paying over the odds for first pressings on vinyl; analogue from microphone to loudspeaker, from an era also when people knew how to cut a record...........and make it sound interesting.
Posted on: 01 February 2011 by graham halliwell
moderators - could you please alter my status to 'trade member' - thanks!
Posted on: 01 February 2011 by JamieL_v2
Almanka
Rock is a very broad genre, from short catchy songs that may have little depth, through to extended suedo classical pieces, played by classically trained musicians.
In most cases there are two acoustic instruments, the voice and the percussion, or drums, which need the same quality of reproduction as any acoustic instrument. Acoustic guitar and occasionally acoustic bass are common too.
I find distorted guitar very similar to muted trumpet, in that it sounds harsh, but accentuates the detail of the playing. Indeed I find the sound of two of my favourite musicians very similar in the difficulties hi-fi has in reproducing their playing, Miles Davis' muted trumpet and Robert Fripp's electric guitar. Both are technically excellent players, and both challenge reproduction through complexity of playing and quality of sound.
As for rebellion and rhythmic brashness, what is the start of Beethoven's 5th Symphony but that? Indeed I believe it received the same reaction as some have to loud rock today, by people leaving the first performance in shock.
It is an interesting thought as to how different types of music make different demands of hi-fi. My system would probably not suit listening to a lot of string quartets, but interestingly it covers loud rock, acoustic songs, jazz, electronic and orchestral music almost equally well.
Rock is a very broad genre, from short catchy songs that may have little depth, through to extended suedo classical pieces, played by classically trained musicians.
In most cases there are two acoustic instruments, the voice and the percussion, or drums, which need the same quality of reproduction as any acoustic instrument. Acoustic guitar and occasionally acoustic bass are common too.
I find distorted guitar very similar to muted trumpet, in that it sounds harsh, but accentuates the detail of the playing. Indeed I find the sound of two of my favourite musicians very similar in the difficulties hi-fi has in reproducing their playing, Miles Davis' muted trumpet and Robert Fripp's electric guitar. Both are technically excellent players, and both challenge reproduction through complexity of playing and quality of sound.
As for rebellion and rhythmic brashness, what is the start of Beethoven's 5th Symphony but that? Indeed I believe it received the same reaction as some have to loud rock today, by people leaving the first performance in shock.
It is an interesting thought as to how different types of music make different demands of hi-fi. My system would probably not suit listening to a lot of string quartets, but interestingly it covers loud rock, acoustic songs, jazz, electronic and orchestral music almost equally well.
Posted on: 01 February 2011 by J.N.
"Does the sound quality really matter with Rock music?"
Of course not - We've all turned the amp up to eleven and are deaf. Eh, what?
But seriously though folks, as an example, take a listen to Steve Hoffman's mastering of the eponymous 'Bad Company' CD on his Audio Fidelity label. Now that's how it should be done. Yes of course the guitars are dirty, but we can actually hear some space around them, and drum strikes have an appreciable and audible dynamic range, as opposed to being lost in a harsh and compressed mush.
And Hi-Res downloads aren't necessarily the answer either if the source material is flawed. I had the opportunity recently to do some comparisons, and it seems that most Hi-Res downloads are being taken from relatively compressed masters, or .......... recent remasters of older albums.
In most cases of the comparisons I heard (Hi-Res versus original CD transfer) a rip of the original CD sounded obviously better on a good system.
I realise that some degree of compression and limiting has historically, generally been applied to popular music, but back in the day, radio stations added their own compression for broadcast. It now seems that excessive compression is being applied at source to optimise the sound for Lo-Fi replay.
John.
Of course not - We've all turned the amp up to eleven and are deaf. Eh, what?
But seriously though folks, as an example, take a listen to Steve Hoffman's mastering of the eponymous 'Bad Company' CD on his Audio Fidelity label. Now that's how it should be done. Yes of course the guitars are dirty, but we can actually hear some space around them, and drum strikes have an appreciable and audible dynamic range, as opposed to being lost in a harsh and compressed mush.
And Hi-Res downloads aren't necessarily the answer either if the source material is flawed. I had the opportunity recently to do some comparisons, and it seems that most Hi-Res downloads are being taken from relatively compressed masters, or .......... recent remasters of older albums.
In most cases of the comparisons I heard (Hi-Res versus original CD transfer) a rip of the original CD sounded obviously better on a good system.
I realise that some degree of compression and limiting has historically, generally been applied to popular music, but back in the day, radio stations added their own compression for broadcast. It now seems that excessive compression is being applied at source to optimise the sound for Lo-Fi replay.
John.
Posted on: 02 February 2011 by Steve2701
I have to agree about the Boston 're-masters' they are truly horrible. Reading the cover booklet makes you cringe even more where it states that Tom himself very carefully re-engineered them. Maybe he should have been even more careful. The originals were bright and forward, but way better than these.
Fortunatley not all are done like this. I recently got a double cd of Propoganda 'a secret wish' & a double of Art of Noise 'Influence' I can highly reccomend these to anyone who likes their material. The liner notes make very specific reference to the way these have been mastered and how they have gone about it. The Art of Noise even states that many original masters have gone missing / no longer exist, so they have made transfers from existing vinyl which has been sympathetically de-clicked etc. The re-mixing of 'Moment in Love' is excellent.
It should be no surprise really as both are from the ZTT stable / Trevor Horn.
Fortunatley not all are done like this. I recently got a double cd of Propoganda 'a secret wish' & a double of Art of Noise 'Influence' I can highly reccomend these to anyone who likes their material. The liner notes make very specific reference to the way these have been mastered and how they have gone about it. The Art of Noise even states that many original masters have gone missing / no longer exist, so they have made transfers from existing vinyl which has been sympathetically de-clicked etc. The re-mixing of 'Moment in Love' is excellent.
It should be no surprise really as both are from the ZTT stable / Trevor Horn.
Posted on: 02 February 2011 by J.N.
To add some balance from me, there are indeed some refreshing examples with new CDs.
One recent acquisition of mine is 'Touch' by Yello, and it's a lovely dynamic, clean, spacious and transparent recording.
John.
One recent acquisition of mine is 'Touch' by Yello, and it's a lovely dynamic, clean, spacious and transparent recording.
John.
Posted on: 02 February 2011 by Steve2701
John,
Did you manage to get the special edition one with the DVD? The final 6 tracks on there are very special indeed, indeed I class them as amongst some of the best I have.
I was going to mention that in my above post, but I seem to mention them a lot in this room.
Did you manage to get the special edition one with the DVD? The final 6 tracks on there are very special indeed, indeed I class them as amongst some of the best I have.
I was going to mention that in my above post, but I seem to mention them a lot in this room.
Posted on: 04 February 2011 by J.N.
Hi Steve,
No; just the standard edition, but a friend has the 'bone-arse' tracks version, and they are interesting for sure.
I received an old/original Steely Dan 'Pretzel Logic' CD recently. Yet again it sounds so much better on a good Naim system than any of the subsequent remastered versions I've heard.
Same story with an original 'Dreamboat Annie' by Heart.
Madness.
John.
No; just the standard edition, but a friend has the 'bone-arse' tracks version, and they are interesting for sure.
I received an old/original Steely Dan 'Pretzel Logic' CD recently. Yet again it sounds so much better on a good Naim system than any of the subsequent remastered versions I've heard.
Same story with an original 'Dreamboat Annie' by Heart.
Madness.
John.
Posted on: 05 February 2011 by Briz Vegas
Of course quality matters regardless of what you like to listen to. Apart from easy listening I have most genres in my collection and its mostly pop/rock/alt. I have aways enjoyed more insight into the music or just more dynamics to make rock rock.
To learn guitar recently I picked up a guitar with upgraded pickups and a sweet valve practice amp. I like the drive channel on the amp but also have a nice distortion pedal which has a responsive sound. It only gets really dirty when you play it hard (pick gently and its almost lie its not there). My point being that there is potentially lots to enjoy sound wise from a simple electric guitar, even with distortion.
You quickly pick up the importance of dynamics once you start mucking about with an instrument.
To learn guitar recently I picked up a guitar with upgraded pickups and a sweet valve practice amp. I like the drive channel on the amp but also have a nice distortion pedal which has a responsive sound. It only gets really dirty when you play it hard (pick gently and its almost lie its not there). My point being that there is potentially lots to enjoy sound wise from a simple electric guitar, even with distortion.
You quickly pick up the importance of dynamics once you start mucking about with an instrument.