Quote
FreeBird
I'll post a comparison between the versions of Sympathy on 1989's Singles Collection and 2002's Beggars when I get around to it. From what I've seen of the 2002 ABKCO remasters so far they seem to be okay, so I don't expect the results to be very shocking - but you never know!

I compared the 1989 edition of the Singles Collection to Rolled Gold+ (a UMG release, in a sense!) and the results are reassuring: the dynamic range is about the same between them (although Sympathy was perhaps not the best song to use for this comparison). It wouldn't be all that interesting to post the details here. The bottom line is that the 2002 ABKCO remasters are fine. They may have been subjected to slight amounts of compression but it's nowhere near the compression that was applied to their post-1971 UMG reissues.

Quote
open-g
>>Let me tell you a little secret: the maximum peak level attainable on a CD (for negative values) is actually +3.0106 dBFS! <<

Err what? Tell me more about that little secret because I've never heared of it.

dBFS must have a minus sign at the beginning. There is not something like +6 dBFS.

Well, you're right in the sense that I was being a bit sloppy with my definitions. You see, I took the definition of dBFS for average levels and applied it to peak levels. The reason I did this was to make the numbers more directly comparable (if you don't do this, peak levels are limited to 0 dBFS but average levels can (theoretically) exceed that). A full-scale undistorted sine wave has an average level of 0 dBFS, by definition. If you continue from there you'll see that my statement is correct, but I admit that my wording could've been a bit clearer - I should've explained my usage of the term dBFS.

Quote
bassplayer617
Visual comparisons? Poppycock. What do your EARS tell you?

Listening to the UMG remaster feels like having bullets fired into your ears. Visual comparisons explain why it feels like that.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-05-23 16:57 by tatters.

Quote
tatters
Listening to the UMG remaster feels like having bullets fired into your ears. Visual comparisons explain why it feels like that.

Exactly! People can listen for themselves, they don't need me to do that. That's why this thread isn't about how the remasters sound to my ears. That would all be highly subjective.

Quote
FreeBird

Quote
tatters
Listening to the UMG remaster feels like having bullets fired into your ears. Visual comparisons explain why it feels like that.

Exactly! People can listen for themselves, they don't need me to do that. That's why this thread isn't about how the remasters sound to my ears. That would all be highly subjective.

Most people are probably thinking "Well, it's just a lot LOUDER now. That's good, right? Louder is better, isn't it?", but they can't for the life of them understand why it's giving them a HEADACHE, and why their ears get TIRED of listening to it when that never used to be the case. They probably just figure it's because they're older now, or their "ears are shot". That's where the science comes in, and it shows that the problem isn't with you, it's with the remastering. It's as if everyone in the band is telling the producer "Make me louder than everyone else", and the producer is telling everyone "Okay".