For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Naturalust
Reducing the dymanic range at all through remastering doesn't serve the music or properly represent the original tapes. Sounds like he was more concerned with pleasing the label and the band. Not sure I trust their 70 year old ears to tell me what's best in 2015. They were obviously happy with the original masters, bringing out more details is fine, even remixing the tracks can be interesting, but making it louder and reducing the dynamic range is not cool. Dynamics are too important to the listening experience to change, imo.
peace
Quote
treaclefingers
What 'additional things' are you hearing Liddas, by virtue of the remaster? We know that there is cropping of the dynamic range, so we are definitely hearing less music than should be there.
Is there something additional that comes to the surface as a result of the volume being louder? Can't we just 'TURN IT LOUD' on our own and keep the range?
Am I overly simplifying this?
Quote
71Tele
Re: The master tapes: I remember an interview with whomever did the original CD mastering (name escapes me, sorry) and he said what were marked as the master tapes sounded terrible. Then they found a copy of the master with various eq indications. That is what was actually used on the original vinyl and that tape is what they used to make the first CD. Maybe this "second" master was not available for the Universal version.
Quote
Naturalust
They will eventually remaster all the stuff with labels saying "maximum dynamic range!" and get all the audiophiles to buy the product one more time. I'll be waiting......
peace
Quote
treaclefingers
What 'additional things' are you hearing Liddas, by virtue of the remaster? We know that there is cropping of the dynamic range, so we are definitely hearing less music than should be there.
Is there something additional that comes to the surface as a result of the volume being louder? Can't we just 'TURN IT LOUD' on our own and keep the range?
Am I overly simplifying this?
Quote
liddasQuote
treaclefingers
What 'additional things' are you hearing Liddas, by virtue of the remaster? We know that there is cropping of the dynamic range, so we are definitely hearing less music than should be there.
Is there something additional that comes to the surface as a result of the volume being louder? Can't we just 'TURN IT LOUD' on our own and keep the range?
Am I overly simplifying this?
Should have written "noticing" instead of "hearing"!
For example, I had never noticed before the interaction between Nicky's piano and Keith's slide part on ventilator (with something not exactly in sync in the first couple of verses ...), Taylor's pull-off work on the instrumental breaks of Turd on the Run, these kind of details.
C
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Keith's pull-offs, though, but they're definitely more audible on the UMG remasters.
Quote
liddasQuote
DandelionPowderman
Keith's pull-offs, though, but they're definitely more audible on the UMG remasters.
God knows, but while I can't think of one example of similar guitar work by Keith in any other song, we all can agree that MT is a well known pull-off aficionado!
What makes you think it was Keith?
C
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
liddasQuote
DandelionPowderman
Keith's pull-offs, though, but they're definitely more audible on the UMG remasters.
God knows, but while I can't think of one example of similar guitar work by Keith in any other song, we all can agree that MT is a well known pull-off aficionado!
What makes you think it was Keith?
C
He's the only guitar player on TOTR, according to the Stones sites and the usual experts [timeisonourside.com]
Quote
liddasQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
liddasQuote
DandelionPowderman
Keith's pull-offs, though, but they're definitely more audible on the UMG remasters.
God knows, but while I can't think of one example of similar guitar work by Keith in any other song, we all can agree that MT is a well known pull-off aficionado!
What makes you think it was Keith?
C
He's the only guitar player on TOTR, according to the Stones sites and the usual experts [timeisonourside.com]
Fair enough, but do you really think it's Keith?
The man is always capable of surprising me, but this time ...
C
Quote
NaturalustQuote
treaclefingers
What 'additional things' are you hearing Liddas, by virtue of the remaster? We know that there is cropping of the dynamic range, so we are definitely hearing less music than should be there.
Is there something additional that comes to the surface as a result of the volume being louder? Can't we just 'TURN IT LOUD' on our own and keep the range?
Am I overly simplifying this?
Not to get to geeky on you treacle but here is the deal:
Cropping the dynamic range doesn't really take away any of music information, it just makes it all closer to the same relative volume. Compression algorithms like mp3 are the one that take away musical information, its different from the compression of dynamic ranges which basically takes away differences in the loudest and softest music. Dynamic range compression shows up as less volume difference in the attack of drum hits and guitar chops and other instruments that have a louder initial pulse. In more extreme cases it takes away the dynamics of a performance where the musicians are purposefully lowering the volume for effect then raising it to create drama and build in a tune.
Nothing comes to the surface better in the process of compression it just makes everything closer to one volume and allows them to turn everything up without digital clipping. For instance on an uncompressed tune maybe the initial sound of the drum hits are up the max level already and therefore they can't make the whole mix louder without causing that drum attack to distort. By squashing it all and reducing the dynamics they can turn the whole mix up.
You may ask, why don't they just mix the overall drum track softer? Because then the drums don't sound loud enough compared to the other instruments. The initial pulse of drums and plucked guitars and other instruments is naturally louder initially and compression destroys this natural sound and fatigues your ears quickly, imo.
Yes we can just turn up the uncompressed stuff on our own but this is more about sounding just as loud as the track played before it to make it stand out. It's like a conversation between many people that starts getting loud and everybody starts to talk louder to be heard.... But strangely the guy who whispers usually gets the most attention!
peace
Quote
kowalski
[www.billboard.com]
"Take Taylor Swift's 1989, which clocked in at a fairly compressed DR6 rating. While Shepherd says that's pretty standard for modern pop music, it's still much louder than classic heavy metal LPs like AC/DC's Back in Black (DR12) and Metallica's The Black Album (DR11). In comparison, Metallica's more recent Death Magnetic reached a blistering DR3 level, while Skrillex's Recess charts at DR4."
"The issue is not new -- Shepherd notes that the Beatles tried to compete with the loudness they heard on vinyl Motown releases -- but he identifies a turning point in the late 90s with the advent of CDs. As engineers began overusing techniques like dynamic range compression to compete for louder masters, sound quality suffered."
"Beyond a certain point, it sounds flat, lifeless, has less of an emotional impact, and can even sound crushed and distorted," Shepherd says. "Unfortunately, that's where a lot of mainstream pop and rock is at."
"Shepherd believes artists and engineers will soon realize the audio arms race is "pointless." He also cites recent albums like Daft Punk's Random Access Memories (DR8) and Jack White's Lazaretto (DR10) that were commercial and critical successes despite employing conservative compression levels. "They prove that you don ’t need that loudness," he says."
Full Billboard article : Taylor Swift's '1989' Is Louder Than AC/DC's 'Back in Black' -- Here's Why
Ian Shepherd's original article : So Taylor Swift is louder than Motorhead, AC/DC and The Sex Pistols… – wait, WHAT?
Quote
treaclefingers
OK, thx for the detail, but to paraphrase it succinctly, are you saying there is no cropping at the higher and lower levels, and that it's just being squashed? That doesn't jive with how I've seen the explanation described previously.
Sorry to continue however to me at least, there seems to be different explanations on what is going on here, with the compression.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
It's possible to open up the soundscape AS WELL AS "brickwalling" the overall sound volume. Marcussen did both.
The result is that the master has become rich on details, but poor on dynamics, imo.
Are you talking aboutQuote
71Tele
Re: The master tapes: I remember an interview with whomever did the original CD mastering (name escapes me, sorry) and he said what were marked as the master tapes sounded terrible. Then they found a copy of the master with various eq indications. That is what was actually used on the original vinyl and that tape is what they used to make the first CD. Maybe this "second" master was not available for the Universal version.
Quote
NaturalustQuote
treaclefingers
OK, thx for the detail, but to paraphrase it succinctly, are you saying there is no cropping at the higher and lower levels, and that it's just being squashed? That doesn't jive with how I've seen the explanation described previously.
Sorry to continue however to me at least, there seems to be different explanations on what is going on here, with the compression.
Dynamic range (DR) compression doesn't crop musical content, it's still there. For instance if an original song went from 2 to 9 on a 1 to 10 volume scale, after DR compression in might go from 3 to 7. Then some engineers turn the whole song up to say 6 to 10 in order to get it to sound louder. ie) the loudness wars.
Data compression is a whole other thing. Algorithms that convert songs to mp3 do indeed crop musical content in order to make the file smaller. High frequencies are often eliminated in the process, cropped out so to speak.
When people talk about "compression" these days it either data compression or dynamic range compression but they are two very different techniques. Probably the source for a lot of confusion. Both techniques have their advantages but have been over used to the point of negatively effecting the listening experience.
peace