How to play a CD - A easy guide.
Discussion
rockinatmidnight said:
Worst i've noticed with this is Metallica's last album, 'Death Magnetic'
Terrible sound quality
Even I am noticing this and im a young 'un! 
Get the version ripped from Guitar Hero III - it's miles better production-wise:Terrible sound quality
Even I am noticing this and im a young 'un! http://mastering-media.blogspot.com/2008/09/metall...
It's a good album sadly let down by appalling mastering. It's available if you know where to look and I can confirm that the sound quality is leagues ahead of the CD.
Edited by Funk on Monday 25th May 14:25
GetCarter said:
As one gets older the ability to hear high frequencies drops off. Starting at age 30 (+/-)There's a way of testing it at the science musium - go there and record how high a frequency you can hear, and go back in 10 years!
Funk said:
rockinatmidnight said:
Worst i've noticed with this is Metallica's last album, 'Death Magnetic'
Terrible sound quality Even I am noticing this and im a young 'un!
Get the version ripped from Guitar Hero III - it's miles better production-wise:Terrible sound quality
Even I am noticing this and im a young 'un! http://mastering-media.blogspot.com/2008/09/metall...
It's a good album sadly let down by appalling mastering. It's available if you know where to look and I can confirm that the sound quality is leagues ahead of the CD.
Edited by Funk on Monday 25th May 14:25
Death magnetic is the worst i've heard, brilliant music, but the quality is a total let down! Distracting when your trying to play along to it too!
rockinatmidnight said:
Funk said:
rockinatmidnight said:
Worst i've noticed with this is Metallica's last album, 'Death Magnetic'
Terrible sound quality Even I am noticing this and im a young 'un!
Get the version ripped from Guitar Hero III - it's miles better production-wise:Terrible sound quality
Even I am noticing this and im a young 'un! http://mastering-media.blogspot.com/2008/09/metall...
It's a good album sadly let down by appalling mastering. It's available if you know where to look and I can confirm that the sound quality is leagues ahead of the CD.
Edited by Funk on Monday 25th May 14:25
Death magnetic is the worst i've heard, brilliant music, but the quality is a total let down! Distracting when your trying to play along to it too!
Gompo said:
From the little I know about it, I presume this generally only happens with 'big' artists? Does it tend to be with guitar based music as opposed to electronic stuff or a mixture of the two?
..Hopefully it shouldnt effect me too much.
It happens even more with mid level bands...Hopefully it shouldnt effect me too much.
They hear the slammed and distorted albums from the big bands, want to emulate it but cannot afford the top mastering guys who can at least achieve some musicality with it.
I know that the new Paolo Nutini album has been under strict instructions to not be destroyed in mastering and the recent Elbow album has, by modern standards, a large dynamic range.
I was pleased to hear that on the latest Ray La Montage album songs that by their nature are softer, are actually quieter than full on drums 'n' all tracks.
A rare thing on modern albums too!
Fair enough - Hopefully from what you've said most of the stuff I listen to will remain as it has in the past.
It would appear though that quite a lot of people are aware of this so maybe the more respected and 'musical' bands will realise and it'll be left to the traditional 'produced' artists to mess it up.
It would appear though that quite a lot of people are aware of this so maybe the more respected and 'musical' bands will realise and it'll be left to the traditional 'produced' artists to mess it up.
KB_S1 said:
Gompo said:
From the little I know about it, I presume this generally only happens with 'big' artists? Does it tend to be with guitar based music as opposed to electronic stuff or a mixture of the two?
..Hopefully it shouldnt effect me too much.
It happens even more with mid level bands...Hopefully it shouldnt effect me too much.
They hear the slammed and distorted albums from the big bands, want to emulate it but cannot afford the top mastering guys who can at least achieve some musicality with it.
I know that the new Paolo Nutini album has been under strict instructions to not be destroyed in mastering and the recent Elbow album has, by modern standards, a large dynamic range.
I was pleased to hear that on the latest Ray La Montage album songs that by their nature are softer, are actually quieter than full on drums 'n' all tracks.
A rare thing on modern albums too!
Funk said:
This explains things beautifully.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ
Cracking example here as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UjQc0dM4H4&fmt...
Actually, I just went and had a look at two versions of the same Dire Straits song. One I ripped from the original CD in my collection a while back and the other I downloaded just now for comparison. The original is from the CD released back in the 80s, the second version is one from the 'Special Edition - Best of' released in 2005 (and features a slightly extended intro). Both are gain-equalised to 90dB.
They barely look like the same track:
Original:
Special Edition Best Of:
The latter sounds horrendous. All the punch, dynamics and clarity have gone. The differences would be even more marked if the format were lossless such as FLAC or WAV. I have them as MP3 for convenience as I put them on the MP3 player and play them in the car. Even so, I've still not acquiesced to my original hi-fi roots and the MP3s are all encoded in Lame at 320kbps.
I have to say that as an audiophile I do agree with tempering the loudness war, but in this particular example, the Dire Straits remaster I would have to disagree that this is a good example.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Gmex_4hreQ
Cracking example here as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UjQc0dM4H4&fmt...
Actually, I just went and had a look at two versions of the same Dire Straits song. One I ripped from the original CD in my collection a while back and the other I downloaded just now for comparison. The original is from the CD released back in the 80s, the second version is one from the 'Special Edition - Best of' released in 2005 (and features a slightly extended intro). Both are gain-equalised to 90dB.
They barely look like the same track:
Original:
Special Edition Best Of:
The latter sounds horrendous. All the punch, dynamics and clarity have gone. The differences would be even more marked if the format were lossless such as FLAC or WAV. I have them as MP3 for convenience as I put them on the MP3 player and play them in the car. Even so, I've still not acquiesced to my original hi-fi roots and the MP3s are all encoded in Lame at 320kbps.
Edited by Funk on Sunday 24th May 15:25
In fact, the remaster is one of my go-to CDs to test out my system which far from being rubbish, is totally flat and powerful enough to reach the THX Ultra standard.
I have listened to the Youtube example, and the most important fact here is that both the original and remaster have had their volumes changed to an 'average listening level'. So, of course if the range of the remaster is slightly reduced then this also reduces the volume of the whole track to match the 1986 version. So, of course the things that stood out of the track such as the snare must have lost volume relative to the original - in that test.
However, the fact remains that we do not all use a software editing package on our tracks and edit them to an average listening level before sampling them. We just want to put a CD in and want it to sound good.
I'll reiterate I certainly agree that many recent tracks are ruined by overcompression. However, to say that every track is the same is a gross oversimplification. OK the new Metallica album sounds like it has been put through a brickwall limiter, but usually the mastering process uses multi-band limiting and compression to split the frequencies into 3, 4, 5 or more bands so each can be treated independently.
Further to this particular track, all is not what it seems as the youtube video puts forward. Back in the 80's the average listener had a very different hi-fi to what they did today. Indeed, most music listened was probably in still in mono on the radio or at least on systems which were incapable of producing low bass and also found it difficult to produce high frequencies.
As a result, tracks were mixed and mastered with a lot less bass because basically the listener's system couldn't really reproduce it anyway and it would only induce distortion. To gain clarity on things like a snare drum, and to make a bass drum audible at all engineers used to have to boost a high frequency with the drum to keep the drum audible in the rhythm.
I've just listened to the Youtube 'test' on my system and at my reference listening level which is averagely loud *I prefer the remaster*.
Notwithstanding the fact that the remaster has effectively had the volume artificially reduced the difference is quite marked. In the remaster the snare has 'meat' the bass sits well in the mix and the kick drum hits me in the chest. On the original the frequencies hyped to bring out 'clarity' on an 80's system only make the snare drum sound very fatiguing and uncomfortable to listen to.
If I tried to raise the volume on the original to get the same level of clarity and punch in the bass it would have made the artificially hyped snare drum and thus the whole track unlistenable to.
So in a nutshell I prefer the remaster and I can totally understand what the masterer was doing and furthermore as an engineer myself I can say he has done a fine job.
The net is full of pictures of sound files which apparently show what has been 'lost' and incinuate an awful machine called a compressor has been used on the whole track to chop off what was once there. An 80's sound file and a 2000's sound file WILL look very different because systems have changed and therefore the way that tracks are mastered to suit them has changed. Further to that the sophistication of mastering has increased greatly to allow clarity to remain whilst also creatively using compression to create drive and punch - not take it away.
If you went through the last ten or fifteen tracks which have won the Grammy for best engineering not one will look like the 80's sound file of Money For Nothing. Indeed - if they did they probably wouldn't have won. Music is for listening to not for looking at a very simplified graph and making swept judgements.
Of course, I do not deny that records have been ruined IMHO - but it is not fair to say all have, and in fact many are dramatically improved by skilled mastering engineers.
A great post and 100% correct Justin, however the second Dire Straits track I posted isn't the remastered one, it's a 'Special Edition' release which isn't the same. I'd be interested to hear the remastered one as all logic says it should sound better. The 'Best of' one I have sounds mashed to buggery (as posted above). Could you post a shot of the remastered one in some form (ie. Audigy or CEP as above)?
Funk said:
A great post and 100% correct Justin, however the second Dire Straits track I posted isn't the remastered one, it's a 'Special Edition' release which isn't the same. I'd be interested to hear the remastered one as all logic says it should sound better. The 'Best of' one I have sounds mashed to buggery (as posted above). Could you post a shot of the remastered one in some form (ie. Audigy or CEP as above)?
The one I have is a two disc 'Best of Dire Straits and Mark Knofler - Private Investigations'. Came out about 3 years ago. According to the sleeve, mastered by Bob Ludwig.I must say it sounds different again to the Youtube newer master, but then again the levels have all been messed with and I don't know what else he has done with it to put it on that video. Unless you listen with normalised levels or comparing A to B directly it is difficult.
There is an old mixing trick where the artist/record company exec will comment on a mix and put an inane comment in.
Half an hour later they will return and the 'new mix' will be ABed to the old. The new mix is identical to the old apart from the desk volume is 2 decibels higher. The artist/exec is so pleased that their input gave the track more punch/life/groove and general oompf.
JustinP1 said:
Funk said:
A great post and 100% correct Justin, however the second Dire Straits track I posted isn't the remastered one, it's a 'Special Edition' release which isn't the same. I'd be interested to hear the remastered one as all logic says it should sound better. The 'Best of' one I have sounds mashed to buggery (as posted above). Could you post a shot of the remastered one in some form (ie. Audigy or CEP as above)?
The one I have is a two disc 'Best of Dire Straits and Mark Knofler - Private Investigations'. Came out about 3 years ago. According to the sleeve, mastered by Bob Ludwig.I must say it sounds different again to the Youtube newer master, but then again the levels have all been messed with and I don't know what else he has done with it to put it on that video. Unless you listen with normalised levels or comparing A to B directly it is difficult.
There is an old mixing trick where the artist/record company exec will comment on a mix and put an inane comment in.
Half an hour later they will return and the 'new mix' will be ABed to the old. The new mix is identical to the old apart from the desk volume is 2 decibels higher. The artist/exec is so pleased that their input gave the track more punch/life/groove and general oompf.
I really prefer the sound of the original one, the later version sounds poor by comparison.I think it depends what you are listening on.
Maybe I am lucky as I have a very dynamic system anyway.
I think also if you AB something although it is easy to say one is louder or EQed better it depends what your point of reference is. As I explained above, whatever two mixes you listen to, the ear will almost always prefer the louder or more 'hyped' or 'scooped' version with the bass and treble louder. After while the ear adjusts and smooths this out.
For the example in the Youtube vid on my Macbook Pro speakers - maybe 80's style hifi sound the original mix was sharp and clear. Once I listened on my big system which was capable of bass the original track loud was fatiguing and lacked any punch. However on the remaster, the top end was a lot smoother and the dynamics were much more pronounced throughout the range - especially the bass which really adds to the groove of the track.
Maybe I am lucky as I have a very dynamic system anyway.
I think also if you AB something although it is easy to say one is louder or EQed better it depends what your point of reference is. As I explained above, whatever two mixes you listen to, the ear will almost always prefer the louder or more 'hyped' or 'scooped' version with the bass and treble louder. After while the ear adjusts and smooths this out.
For the example in the Youtube vid on my Macbook Pro speakers - maybe 80's style hifi sound the original mix was sharp and clear. Once I listened on my big system which was capable of bass the original track loud was fatiguing and lacked any punch. However on the remaster, the top end was a lot smoother and the dynamics were much more pronounced throughout the range - especially the bass which really adds to the groove of the track.
As per my earlier post, my Naim system has been sold on now. I'm using a Cyrus 8vs2 as a stop-gap with my Celestion A2 speakers (surprisingly good, the little Cyrus as it happens). It's no longer proper 'purist' but still not shabby.
If you have time, perhaps you could rip me a WAV or FLAC of that one track and send it over for comparison? Would be interesting to hear.
If you have time, perhaps you could rip me a WAV or FLAC of that one track and send it over for comparison? Would be interesting to hear.
Gassing Station | Music | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff