The sick thing is, this is a very mild example. There's MUCH MUCH worse out there. I just so happen to own both of these. Check the follow-up video here • Loudness Wars: Is Viny...
My band, American Time Machine, has all our material uncompressed, and available on Spotify and such. Sorry for the ad, but I figured you might appreciate it! We just compressed vocals and bass, and left the master track alone.
I think compression, when used appropriately, is a very good thing. It and its variants are often misused or abused though. If you ask me, the worst thing to happen to music is MIDI. How many songs in the 80s were ruined by MIDI? That paved the way for samplers, which paved the way for modern DAWs so hacks that don't belong in the music industry can slice, dice non-performances into something useable or download samples and make entire records with a mouse and keyboard. Sorry, it had to be said.
+wado1942 I don't think that MIDI and DAW are the worst thing for happen to music, after all, they're just tools. Remember that the introduction of CD's and the rapid growth of listening to music on headphones probably was a much more influential effect on the loudness war than MIDI and DAW's, that are, just tools.
+JewNachos I do not think MIDI or DAWs are inherently bad, but you have to admit when any tool is overused or used badly by way too many people, it is bad news. MIDI does not directly have anything to do with the loudness war, but in the 80s, when MIDI became THE thing, non-musicians were able to crank out boring, robotic junk that saturated the radio. The robot sound has carried over to real bands. Great singers have been sapped of all humanity by pitch correction, over-compression and hyper-editing. Great drummers aren't even on their own albums as they have been quantized and replaced with samples. Guitar parts with feeling have been edited and looped so the inflections and subtlety are gone. Why? At the same time, talentless hacks get the same treatment and sound the same as the good bands. The tools used to make it happen are not bad, but they ruined the music.
+wado1942 Couldn't agree more. Midi and VST song writing is much the same as painting by numbers and calling yourself an artist. Photographers are the same with photoshop, It's a load of bollocks. The reason it appeals is people don't want to put the effort in and learn anything today. Can you imagine of crap things will be in 20 years time?
That's a tough thing to do verbally. I've tried to explain to clients why they might want to take a more conservative approach to mastering levels but the only thing that seems to have an impact is demonstrate a "modest" master vs. "hot" right in front of them, at matched playback SPL. They UNIVERSALLY prefer the sound of the modest master but almost universally have me do a "hot" master any way, because they're afraid other people won't like it.
@@wado1942 Who told them to be afraid that other people won't like it? You should start directing your clients here. They'll see a few outliers who prefer the noisy version, but they'll also see that most of us want to hear the song properly.
@@Selrisitai Maybe I should. I have done A/B comparisons with clients in my studio where I compared level-matched "hot" masters to what I prefer. They always say they like my way better but ultimately choose the "hot" version out of fear.
@@wado1942 There are apparently studies that prove that "louder" albums don't sell better. _That_ should sway them, if nothing else. Avenged Sevenfold's album _the Stage_ and Daft Punk's album _Random Access Memory_ were both mastered at a DR score of 8 or more. They both sold well as far as I'm aware, and I never heard nobody complain about the loudness on them.
@@Selrisitai Yeah, it's all a game. It was started by a series of surveys that showed people flipping through radio stations paused slightly longer (like 2-3 seconds) on louder ones.
As a mastering engineer, I'm fine losing business in favor of preserving art. I lost a lot of money because I won't push records passed where they want to be. You know what though? That's also gained me a lot of business.
@@wado1942 well, although you're proud of passing the buck of responsibility off to someone else, but the fact is that you and others hanging out a shingle saying "mastering engineer" is what caused the problem in the first place. In the past, "mastering engineer" has meant one thing: the art of making an acetate master disk for the mass production of vinyl records. And because vinyl records are an analog medium with certain limitations, sometimes the original program needs to be edited to make it fit within the limitations of the medium. But when Compact Disc came along, there was no such requirement. And for digital files there's no master article at all! Each soundfile is a perfect clone of the others, with _no_ generational loss. The fact is that the need for mastering is dropping as people use less and less physical media, why are there so many "mastering engineers" all the sudden? I have nothing against innovation, creating a market where none existed before, _if that market serves a legitimate need._ But "mastering" where there's no need and no master is present is another story. That's not free market economics, it's fraud. In the past, some people have tried to sell services called "sweetening" to the industry. And while those people didn't misrepresent their services as "mastering" or themselves as "engineers", what they did offer was no different to what could be done in any recording studio, by the recording artists themselves. And artists were rightly suspicious of sweetening because it was being done behind their backs, and it was not a necessary part of production. Let's face facts here. Part of the reason why calling it "mastering" works is because that word does imply that it's a necessary step in record production. But when it's not, it becomes a con. It's not a victimless con either; the music-buying public pays for those unneeded services. Why are you swindling us?
What's even more sad about this is that this particular album was among the first to showcase what a CD was truly capable of. And look at that rerelease.....Brothers In Arms has become another victim of the loudness war.
That was supposed to be the whole point of CDs: they were capable of higher fidelity and dynamics than was ever possible with vinyl or other analog forms. But people chose loudness over sound quality, which means that vinyl is superior in most cases.
@@hotwax9376 people did not choose it, the producers, labels and studios forced volume at the expense of quality upon people in order to make their product "stand out".
@@cbcdesign001 hot wax 93 though isn't all wrong. Humans are attracted to clarity and loudness. To people that don't understand how music works, they think louder is better but not when the quality has been sacrificed. There is a volume knob for a reason, so you can blast quality dynamic music, sausage waveform music hurts your ears more after longer time, sounds less punchy and vibrant
Interesting... I have the '96 "remastered" version that sounds just the same as the '85 original release, as if it was rerelease. The latest remastered edition is the over compressed one.
This original 1986 CD is a full digital recording (one of the first). I don't know why it would ever need to be remastered anyway. On all the remastered CD's it no longer said Full digital recording 1996, 2000 and 2006. So, dose this mean the remaster CD's are second generation analog masters? Which one you think is going to sound the best? One last thing. The remastered versions are compressed for maximum volume. So, I'am with you, remastered doesn't always mean better.
The remasters all had the same basic workflow as the original; mastered from digital mix tapes, through largely analogue equipment to digital. The biggest difference is that the remasters had limiting applied in the digital domain to "make it loud". They could easily have just taken the original masters and clone them to DDP format without losing any quality.
mikimike yes, and the sad part is that most people don't realize how their being deceived about these vinyl records today. The vinyl records today come from digital. The CD's come from digital. Vinyls used to be recorded in analog. CD's used to be a transfer from analog to digital. Both sounded better than they do now.
Not long time ago I compared the "LEAVE IN SILENCE" on this two REMASTERED edition. The first the "A BROKEN FRAME" Hybrid Remastered SACD-CD Collectors Edition (DMCD2, 0094637006023; Master tape resurrection and transfer at FX Copyroom) from 2006: www.discogs.com/Depeche-Mode-A.../release/967926 The second "THE SINGLES 81 > 85" Remastered Edition (LCDMUTEL1, 5016025682201; All tracks compiled and remasterd at The Exchange) from 1998: www.discogs.com/Depeche-Mode-The.../release/1432770 On the album remastered version 'dull, quieter, is not so clear', but on the compilation remastered version (eight years earlier) however an absolute reference audio quality! 'Clear, dynamic, very nicely restored version' - otherwise any Hi-Fi system can be tested! ;-) Unfortunately they are not working on the Collectors Edition... :-( ua-cam.com/video/_Z02bdcL_N8/v-deo.html
"Not all vinyl is created equal or clean!" I'm glad you said this because a lot of people seem to automatically think that vinyl is good. Most of it is junk, especially the stuff from the mid/late 80s. The stuff was super thin, often not the best quality plastic and usually cut from a digital source or the lathe was run from a digital delay line. Today, most vinyl is cut from the same over-baked master as the CD to boot. I do admit, though, when you get GOOD vinyl, there's nothing like it!
what a disaster... even on 2 quid laptop speakers difference is heartbreaking... I also don;t buy remastered stuff, it's just louder, worse version of originals, what is the point, except the $$$ ??
One of the side effects from hyper-limiting the audio for the sake of loudness is it destroys the higher level detail while bringing up the lower level detail, such as reverb. So yeah, it sounds like there's more reverb even though they didn't actually add any.
I found this album (Brother in Arms) in my parents CD collection the other day. I remember buying it in 1986 and losing it in the 90's. My parents had it all the time but never once listened to it! I played it on my HiFi the other night and couldn't believe how much I had to turn it up to hear it properly. I have over £3000 worth of Hifi and couldn't understand why I needed to crank it up so much. However, having watched a number of 'Loudness Wars' videos I now realise why. And thinking about it, although I had to increase the volume somewhat, the sound was pure, warm, crisp and each instrument was as clear as a sunny day.
Some remastered CDs sound much better than the original CD/record, others are worse, and in general CDs from the 80s are worse than the records from the same era. Those CDs were shrill, thin and cold. The Metallica "Death Magnetic" clip that's here on UA-cam is one of the worst brickwallings I've heard, whereas the digital remaster of the Doors' first album from 1999 is one of the best. Listen to "Break on through", especially the verse. It's a work of art.
mcnyregrus I agree.. Roxette First album vs latest remastered.. Flat and harsh vs warm and full.. I could not beleave it.. For 80s cd you need loudness button on your amp
classical remastered cd sounds better because the music literally needs dynamics to sound good, there was no such thing as compression in the 19th century hahaha
Studies showed that when the same recording is played back to back at slightly different levels, listeners percieved the louder one to be better. The levels slowly started creeping upwards .5dB at a time ever since. Looks like there may be some hope. I checked out the new Beatles mono remaster and they did a good job. U2's latest record is 2dB lower (still heavily limited though) than their previous one. The key is public awareness.
Great example. The rhythm section drives you along on the early version and the later compressed version it is drowned out with the wall of sound. This isn't about the format or sampling rate of digital. It is about the mastering (marketing) process. Thanks for this great video. (I'll go put on this album now and enjoy!)
Thank you for posting this. I notice you are you are very kind to people that don't hear the difference at first. Hopefully people become more educated about the loss of dynamic range and the music industry will begin to respond.
There's been plenty of petitions from engineers, producers, musicians and audiophiles all over the world to create a standard for masters like there are for motion picture film and DVD. The record companies pretty well ignore them. The most recent idea I've heard was to put a sticker the crest ratio (peak to RMS level) on the CD. Record companies seem to almost WANT to fail because they continuously refuse to listen to public demands both in production, medium and style.
I just discovered the loudness war as I've been rebuilding my classic rock collection. I always assumed that "remastered" CDs would sound better, but I have been horrified by results in videos like this one. I first noticed issues when I compared the 1987 first pressing of Blizzard of Ozz with a remastered one. The volume jumped halfway up when I switched from the original to the new version. The "remaster" sounded condensed and flat, as if the drum set was one of those little practice sets. The guitar sounded like it was recorded on one of those cheap 2-track personal studio machines. I'm glad I discovered vids like this before I made a serious investment in my music collection. I have since been seeking out original first pressings of most CDs. Thanks so much!
+Europa Escenario Estudio Hey, the best place to buy old 1980s and early 1990s CDs is eBay. Do some Googling to find out the record label, code numbers, or year that the original pressing was released, then enter in that information into an eBay search. You can also find a lot of information out about first master pressings on Steve Hoffman Forums. Now, there are some remasters that actually do sound better than original pressings, but it's always best to check reviews on Amazon or the Hoffman forums to see whether or not it would be worth it to track down the original. With eBay, it is really quite easy and affordable though.
Totally agree Andrew, I'm no Ozzy fan, but I can completley relate to what you are saying. Def Lep's classic "Hysteria" has been destroyed in it's "new found remaster" form. It is all such as gimmick. Yes, ebay has been good to me "updating" remasters with originals.
whats also something about this remaster thing is: the company reserves the rights to a record longer if they re release it, so obviously they dont remaster it for the listener, more to renew their property.
Not only that, but the record companies deduct the cost of remastering/rereleasing from the ARTISTS' share of the royalties, with or without their knowledge or permission.
Replay gain is cool because it simply adjusts the playback level, as long as it uses negative gain only (I haven't tried it so I don't know) and not positive gain. Positive gain is bad because it can cause clipping. Great question, BTW.
Thanks for explaining. I've heard a couple of my music connoisseurs say their vinyl was better quality than the cd. Here, I can hear the difference via my cell phone alone. I hear the likened absence of a stairwell echo when switched to the remastered, ..kinda like the difference between AM & FM Stereo radio, but not quite as notable here.
Ran across your video. Guess I could be considered an audiophile that went into hibernation and came back out to a new and unfamiliar audio world. I built some really nice systems back when I was in my teens and twenties. Systems were always built to accurately reproduce the sound the producers intended. Well I'm in my 40's now and just completed what should be a very high end system complete with soundproofing. To celebrate the moment I purchased a few new CD's and popped them in for a listen. Sounded like crap to me. Had one of my teenage girls listen. Of course she thought it was fine. Played some of my older music from back in the day and pointed out the differences I heard. I think I saw the light bulb illuminate within in her. So I tuned and tuned and tuned. Finally gave up under the premise "some recordings are just dirty". Turns out my system is playing as designed. Garbage in, garbage out. Funny thing is my research shows most audiophiles recommending many of the tracks I used back in the mid to late 90's including Dire Straits. Don't even get me started on the plethora of other formats (MP3, Pandora, etc).
I am at a similar point. I have been building up my Hifi for the last 7 years, and now have over £3000 worth of set up. BUT..... I'm finding stuff that I used to enjoy, less and less enjoyable. Doesn't that defeat the object of upgrading? I'm coming to the conclusion that CD's recorded in the last 20 years SUCK!
BigDogsDangler That was the argument with engineer working in Motown back in the 60s. They wanted their masters to be "loud and clear" on transistor radios, despite being distorted messes on HiFi systems.
wado1942 Just received one of my test disks. My Disc: The Sheffield/A2TB Test Disc. Tracks 69 & 70 show this effect with amazing clarity (tough to get the full difference on youtube although it is still bad enough to be heard. Pulling some tracks off hd tracks now. Really can't believe they did this to music.
Shain Andrews Yeah, even #70 doesn't show how bad many modern pop albums are. Some are so hot, they crackle! "HD" just means it's 24-bit and possibly higher sample rate than 48KHz, not necessarily that the levels are more reasonable. I said it elsewhere and I'll say it again, I'd rather have a 44.1K 16-bit master, even an MP3 with the full dynamics than a crushed to death high res master.
Stephen Baldassarre Couldn't agree more. You can sample the crap out of a terribly crushed master, doesn't make it sound any better. Since I'm just getting back into this game can you recommended some sources for quality masters? I literally stepped out of the game as the loudness wars started so I had no idea the industry did this until about two months ago.
FANTASTIC! Clear and simple visual and acaustical example. You can clearly see and clearly hear the difference. Now it's easy to explain to people what is this loudness war.
Hey, wado1942, I'm a newbie to this way of listening to music, and I've really enjoyed your videos thus far. Theoretically, I understand how the compressor works completely. But I do not understand why overcompression always seems to result in a muddy "underwater" kind of sound. Are the high frequencies always the ones to go first? I mean, apart from dynamic range being sacrificed, it seems like the bass and mid-lows come to the foreground and the sharp highs go down. Is that right?
@ExilLarkdanx Thanks for the reference. I have to say though that "88-91dB" has no bearing on actual level on the disk. Do you have a measurement for the crest ratio or RMS level on disk?
Even if the master was made on tape, a VERY small percentage of cutting houses can keep the signal analogue all the way through the process. It requires very rare & expensive tape machines that are made specifically for making vinyl masters because a preview of the audio signal has to feed the lathe computer to cut the groove before the actual signal gets cut into said groove. The standard since the early 80s (starting in the late 70s) has been to use a digital delay to feed the cutter head.
In sound editors there is a Normalise option to maximise the peak volume. Does this destroy the music? I don't see this as loudness though as there is no compression involved to make the lower sounds louder, it's just like turning the volume up. Thoughts?
I did some research on the concept of UA-cam doing dynamic compression. It looks like that was something that was introduced and discontinued in 2008. Complaints led UA-cam to re-encode the videos from the original uploaded files to allow the full dynamic range.
Some people do separate mastering jobs for vinyl, but you're right. Almost all modern vinyl releases are every bit as clipped & limited as the CDs. Except there's additional tone shaping & level adjustments required for vinyl making it sound even more distorted. That's why I always try to do some research before choosing to buy anything.
@slask25 Actually, there was a study conducted a few years ago where different masters of the same song were sent through a common radio processor for a listening test. The input levels between masters varied as much as 10dB but the output was the same on all of them. The only difference was the pre-crushed mixes sounded even more distorted because of the phase rotation + clipping/limiting of the radio processor.
@Frungi Agreed, that's why most replay systems have some kind of compressor built into them. You can chose dynamic range if you want good sound or you can choose squashed if you want constant level. I'll maintain, though, that extreme transient limiting does not help in either case. Parallel compression or low threshold, low ratio compression is much more effective for that purpose.
@Bassbait That's from compressing the stereo mix, not just drums. The drums peak above everything else, so if you hyper-compress the mix, the drums will control the everything else. I get that a lot now. The sick thing is, a lot of guys insist on crushing the mix, DURING mixing, rather than letting a specialist (mastering engineer) handle it, who can do it much more transparently. When people send me crushed mixes, I just tell them there's nothing that can be done for it without a remix.
@krokigrygg Surveys conducted back in the 60s said that louder radio stations held on to their listeners something like 2-3 seconds longer than quiet ones. Of course, radio processors make the loudness of the albums completely irrelevant so it comes down to shuffle mode on iPods. Bands don't want their own song to be less loud than the competition. I don't understand that either because the user's already bought the song by the time it's on their iPod.
Seems like they bumped up the bass too much and it pushes the vocals into the background. What do you guys think some of the best mixed albums are? I think Steven Wilson has put out some stuff that sounds incredible.
@wado1942 Thank-you for the reply. They could make the shiny little disc sound amazing if they wanted to. HDCD was a bust along with DVD Audio, and it would be mind blowing what they could do with a Blue Ray audio format. I have invested in my "last cd player" and listen to cd's and vinyl with a 1961 vintage tube amplifier that I restored. I am no snob, but people who don't care about quality audio help make sure it will disappear. Thanks for educating people. You are making a difference.
I have bought the Queen Platinum 3 Disc collection. I bought it new but the copyright date is from 2001 if I remember. Would you consider that compressed? Because I avoided the digital 2011 remasters for the compression and am hoping it's not the same as the platinum without my knowledge.
I would have to hear it to know for sure. As much as I appreciate Queen (and May especially), I don't own any of their records. Generally, almost everything is compressed; it's just a matter of whether or not it's OVER-COMPRESSED. Most of the stuff I've gotten to master in recent years was already so heavily compressed in the mixing stage that I actually have to use expansion in the mastering stage to get some life back in it.
I didn't notice too much difference in this example except the keyboards/vocals were louder compared to the drums. Did you play them at equal volume (comparing a normalised version 1 to version 2)?
@vbrindle Normalizing is not as destructive as limiting & clipping etc because it does not alter the dynamics or crest factor of the music. I will state, though, that almost all digital processes add distortion. Exceptions to this are simple summing and increasing the level by exactly 6.02dB (assuming you're still not clipping the signal). Now, increasing the level by 6dB or 6.04dB will increase quantization error, but if you're using a good DAW, it shouldn't be enough to notice.
@Jerrysway The original recording was done on 1/2" 24-track digital tape. The master is U-Matic digital stereo cassette. The remaster used here may have been taken from the PCM mix tape or the master tape, but not the 1/2" DASH. That said, even if it was recorded on analogue, there wouldn't be that much degradation. I've remastered stuff from the 70s that was only -.5dB from original spec.
I knew that speakers now a days have a bigger possible dynamic range but never knew the extent of the compression they use on modern cds, just to obtain a Louder sound. Headphones on - I can certainly here the difference...wow. I have just listened to a old cd and a modern re-release of the same song. Quite astonishing. Thanks for info!!
@waterinawell Limiting/clipping harms the quality of the audio regardless of the medium. MP3s are actually much worse and the lower the bit rate, the more harm said treatment does. SACDs are somewhat exempt from the loudness war and in fact, limiting & clipping can't be done in a DSD domain. If they want to digitally slam the levels for SACD, it would first have to be converted to PCM, which degrades the sound, process it and convert back. It does happen though, just not often.
@TimpBizkit You can't normalize them or they won't be equal loudness anymore. They are, however, within 0.2db of each other for this example. Since the drums are crushed, that will have a LITTLE effect on overall loudness, causing the other instruments to be increased very slightly in level.
The ironic thing about the loudness wars is the inability to be able to listen to the affected music loudly. Optimally compressed music can have it's volume cranked up with comfort and ease to a louder degree than ridiculously over-compressed music, which can only be listened to comfortably at low volumes.... that's if its listenable at all.
That's a really good point. I suspect it's because the sound is so fatiguing, it's hard to handle high volumes. On the other hand, if you turn down the music too much, it sound really wimpy whereas a more modestly mastered album still has energy and punch.
@vbrindle I wouldn't use normalise. The basic way to explain it, is if everything sounds loud, nothing stands out so you lose a lot of clarity. Best way is to get it as close as you can to -0.1db in the mix (never over), then pull the master back so it peaks at about -3db. Then master it using an adaptive limiter and multipressor, which compresses various frequencies rather than the whole sound (ie add more punch to the bass).
@IStoleYourPotatoes Thanks for the kind words. I started noticing the shortcomings of CD early, but they could definitely sound better than they do. I'm a fan of SACD and it's a shame the very few albums available in the format are often just converted from PCM sources. I could never get DVD-A disks to play in my DVD-A player. There's so many variations of the format, it's hard to maintain compatibility. Thing is, the consumers wanted to have 4,000 songs in their pocket more than quality.
Try listening at a lower volume. Some systems tend to compress the audio as a side effect of not having enough headroom. Lower volume levels don't stress the amp's power supply as much so that may be more revealing.
I appreciate that. I just wish I had a more severe real world example because this remaster sits around -10dBfs which is bad enough to take away a lot of the drum impact and dulls the sound a little but doesn't create that super-distorted mush most new masters have.
@TheDaedalEVE That's very true. In the 90s, virtually every portable music player & a lot of car stereos had compressors to keep the levels even. The technology has evolved to a point where that can be done very cheaply and much more transparently than back then. It would be my preference that such a feature be built into devices like that so the consumer had a choice. The other thing would be to provide two masters, which is something a lot of my clients are requesting now.
@SpringIsBACK Sorry, I don't have any other examples because I tent do avoid remasters. There's some on the net though. There's a great example of Abba's "Super Troopers" lurking around UA-cam somewhere.
@foketesz just to chime in to your post... the subjective ear/brain usually hears louder as "better". This is the perception upon initial listening. Compressed music always seems to sound more satisfying at first. (because it's louder)Fatique also sets in very soon, within 5 to 10 minutes! Reality is that compressed music is overall far less satisfying, but "tricks" the listener into thinking it's better. Music is mostly dynamic, so if we want to hear & feel more punch, just turn up the volume
@the81kid That's a very good point and I've felt the same way for a long time, though you put it more eloquently. One time when I had somebody in my isolation booth (which wasn't even complete), they said it was deafening without all the noise of the world!
The 2006 example was ripped directly from the CD layer of the 25th anniversary SACD. The 1986 example was ripped directly off of disk as well. Both examples were loaded into the same timeline of a top quality audio editor with no manipulation other than overall levels. Part of the effect of heavy limiting is loss of clarity & generation of artificial sub harmonics. I also suspect the engineer may have rolled off the top end slighly to soften the transients before limiting.
@zachabend Actually, I'm doing a project where some of the songs are to be squashed for effect and others not. My solution was to limit the snot out of those songs, but pull back the levels to match the rest of the material. Therefore, it's done PURELY for effect and not perceived loudness. Limiting & clipping 99.999% of the time is done merely for the sake of appearing louder than somebody else's material.
What little experience I've had with "HD" tracks, they're just as slammed as the CDs and MP3s. Sure, there's a lot more low-level detail, but what's the point when the normal portions are squishy & distorted?
Thanks, this is a really good example of how it effects the quality. Now I have a video I can link to the younger guys out there when I explain to them that their music sounds like crap compared to what it used to be. Without them thinking I'm attacking their music :P
@monty78pig The bandwidth limit for DVD is about 9mbps, so 4-channel 48K 24-bit is already 4.608mbps, plus you have to have video content of some kind. There just isn't enough bandwidth for 96KHz unless you want to go with stereo only. I don't hear much difference between 96KHz and 192KHz personally. My plan is to do 24-bit quad and interleave dithered 16-bit 48KHz stereo for those who don't have surround so that will cover my bases.
@apnixlover900 Most recordings from the 50s/60s are on tape so crackles/pops aren't usually an issue. Though tapes weren't handled very carefully. It was common for masters to be made from 6th or later generations from bouncing. Every time the rights got bought by another label, the previous would send a copy of the master. That could happen several times for a song. In that case, PROPER remastering is more research (often skipped) to find an earlier generation than actual audio tweaking.
Hey, that's exactly why I liked this album, dynamics. You should hear the Dolby 5.1 remix of this. It's so heavily compressed, the level just drops like a rock when the drums are playing.
the sad truth is the buyers don't usually have the ear for understanding the huge difference, and are simply drawn in by the words "remastered" on their favorite album. Suckered in by this crappy money hungry music industry that adds no value to the creativity by real artists.
@EddieAlda Actually, that is one of the reasons I started listening to vinyl. Such extreme compression was out of the question for that medium, plus, you got to hear what all that great music really sounded like to most ears back when that stuff first came out. I love the thick, warm sound of vinyl compared to the cold-harsh digital sound.... especially the compressed garbage that's out now.
@zerogravity121 No joke, not only are they both CD, the whole album was recorded digitally, mixed to digital and mastered to digital. They remastered it so they could put "Digitally remastered" on the cover and hope people would somehow think it's better.
@wado1942 I got the latest "In the Court..." recently and it does sound very good. You say you have much worse examples -- do you have "much worse" examples, "before" and "after"? Maybe that would make the difference clearer to those who claim they can't hear it (probably they have little critical listening experience, or poor equipment, or both.)
@VinylLad With origial masters, that's generally the case. In my experience with new vinyl prints, most come from the same crushed, improperly adjusted (for vinyl) masters as the CD/MP3s
@movieking88 I really want to listen to large Klipsch tower speakers. I think that after listening to those kind of speakers one will no longer consider headphones as the first audiophile choice.
Only thing I would do with the first dire straits is just to normalise to 0dB peak and possibly lower the highest stray snare peaks by 1dB or less and renormalise. That gets more signal hotness but doesn't alter dynamics noticeably.
@whatchannelisthisnow That's a bit of an odd statement because "Money for Nothin'" was recorded to digital, mixed to digital and mastered to digital. The production was designed from the beginning for CD. The funny thing is, music on the old Edison cylinders typically had about a 12-18dB dynamic range. With Vinyl, it was basically the same, but less noise on the medium. Then CD came and albums of the early 80s like this had about a 24dB range. Now on modern CDs (and MP3s), it's about 4dB!
Important video. Unfortunately, many mastering engineers and music producers and record companies have 'Over-loud' themselves and work with their ego, instead their ears.
I always use GP9 at 15 I/S 400nWb/M IEC (even my AG-440c) and never really had HF issues. There's a few decks with HX on it that makes the high end cleaner still, though I don't have one. If you don't mind losing a little bottom end or getting super expensive heads, there's always 30 I/S too. I've never recorded 30 I/S myself but my 440 is ready for it. Digital has a lot of issues too, mostly because of the harsh filters used to restrict the bandwidth, so I usually only master to digital.
Not all remasters are bad, but this example sure is.
If the remaster is done only with the purpose to make it sound louder, it will suck.
@@philosophiaentis5612 facts
You're right.
@@philosophiaentis5612 Making something louder doesn't mean it will suck, clipping and compressing the audio is what causes problems.
Beatles remastered also dosent sound as good, atleast to me. I want to hold your hand is much better live than remastered
If I want it louder I have a volume knob. Stop the #LoudnessWar and give us back our #DynamicRange !
René Wiskow
I hate Loudness on CDs, too!
I shared it on Facebook for my swedish friends. Thanks Martin!
I know but every volume knob has a limit. When your on full blast, your not going to get it as loud as you couldve gotten it.
GuyVelella When you are on full blast and your neighbours have not called the police then your amplifier is to weak.
My band, American Time Machine, has all our material uncompressed, and available on Spotify and such. Sorry for the ad, but I figured you might appreciate it! We just compressed vocals and bass, and left the master track alone.
Dynamic range compression is the worst thing that have happened to music.
They took one of the great things of CDs and fucked it up, so sad.
I think compression, when used appropriately, is a very good thing. It and its variants are often misused or abused though.
If you ask me, the worst thing to happen to music is MIDI. How many songs in the 80s were ruined by MIDI? That paved the way for samplers, which paved the way for modern DAWs so hacks that don't belong in the music industry can slice, dice non-performances into something useable or download samples and make entire records with a mouse and keyboard.
Sorry, it had to be said.
wado1942
Still, that's no excuse to mess up almost all songs.
Hopefully the loudness war ends in the future.
+wado1942 I don't think that MIDI and DAW are the worst thing for happen to music, after all, they're just tools. Remember that the introduction of CD's and the rapid growth of listening to music on headphones probably was a much more influential effect on the loudness war than MIDI and DAW's, that are, just tools.
+JewNachos I do not think MIDI or DAWs are inherently bad, but you have to admit when any tool is overused or used badly by way too many people, it is bad news. MIDI does not directly have anything to do with the loudness war, but in the 80s, when MIDI became THE thing, non-musicians were able to crank out boring, robotic junk that saturated the radio. The robot sound has carried over to real bands. Great singers have been sapped of all humanity by pitch correction, over-compression and hyper-editing. Great drummers aren't even on their own albums as they have been quantized and replaced with samples. Guitar parts with feeling have been edited and looped so the inflections and subtlety are gone. Why? At the same time, talentless hacks get the same treatment and sound the same as the good bands. The tools used to make it happen are not bad, but they ruined the music.
+wado1942 Couldn't agree more. Midi and VST song writing is much the same as painting by numbers and calling yourself an artist. Photographers are the same with photoshop, It's a load of bollocks. The reason it appeals is people don't want to put the effort in and learn anything today. Can you imagine of crap things will be in 20 years time?
Thanks for this. I was trying to explain to someone how loudness can affect overall tonal quality.
That's a tough thing to do verbally. I've tried to explain to clients why they might want to take a more conservative approach to mastering levels but the only thing that seems to have an impact is demonstrate a "modest" master vs. "hot" right in front of them, at matched playback SPL. They UNIVERSALLY prefer the sound of the modest master but almost universally have me do a "hot" master any way, because they're afraid other people won't like it.
@@wado1942 Who told them to be afraid that other people won't like it? You should start directing your clients here. They'll see a few outliers who prefer the noisy version, but they'll also see that most of us want to hear the song properly.
@@Selrisitai Maybe I should. I have done A/B comparisons with clients in my studio where I compared level-matched "hot" masters to what I prefer. They always say they like my way better but ultimately choose the "hot" version out of fear.
@@wado1942 There are apparently studies that prove that "louder" albums don't sell better. _That_ should sway them, if nothing else.
Avenged Sevenfold's album _the Stage_ and Daft Punk's album _Random Access Memory_ were both mastered at a DR score of 8 or more. They both sold well as far as I'm aware, and I never heard nobody complain about the loudness on them.
@@Selrisitai Yeah, it's all a game. It was started by a series of surveys that showed people flipping through radio stations paused slightly longer (like 2-3 seconds) on louder ones.
the 2006 one sounds "muddy" and less bright, the original one sounds better.
1986 also has more Punch/Dynamic
As a mastering engineer, I'm fine losing business in favor of preserving art. I lost a lot of money because I won't push records passed where they want to be. You know what though? That's also gained me a lot of business.
What do you think about remasters like carcass heart work full dynamic range edition?
@@hectortorres8188 I'm afraid I haven't heard them.
But that's the problem, people like you taking money for unnecessary and detrimental sweetening.
@@StringerNews1 How so? I said I turned down business where clients wanted me to do detrimental "sweetening".
@@wado1942 well, although you're proud of passing the buck of responsibility off to someone else, but the fact is that you and others hanging out a shingle saying "mastering engineer" is what caused the problem in the first place.
In the past, "mastering engineer" has meant one thing: the art of making an acetate master disk for the mass production of vinyl records. And because vinyl records are an analog medium with certain limitations, sometimes the original program needs to be edited to make it fit within the limitations of the medium. But when Compact Disc came along, there was no such requirement. And for digital files there's no master article at all! Each soundfile is a perfect clone of the others, with _no_ generational loss.
The fact is that the need for mastering is dropping as people use less and less physical media, why are there so many "mastering engineers" all the sudden? I have nothing against innovation, creating a market where none existed before, _if that market serves a legitimate need._ But "mastering" where there's no need and no master is present is another story. That's not free market economics, it's fraud.
In the past, some people have tried to sell services called "sweetening" to the industry. And while those people didn't misrepresent their services as "mastering" or themselves as "engineers", what they did offer was no different to what could be done in any recording studio, by the recording artists themselves. And artists were rightly suspicious of sweetening because it was being done behind their backs, and it was not a necessary part of production.
Let's face facts here. Part of the reason why calling it "mastering" works is because that word does imply that it's a necessary step in record production. But when it's not, it becomes a con. It's not a victimless con either; the music-buying public pays for those unneeded services. Why are you swindling us?
No difference? The remastered sounds completely jumbled.
u can really hear it at like 1:05
What's even more sad about this is that this particular album was among the first to showcase what a CD was truly capable of. And look at that rerelease.....Brothers In Arms has become another victim of the loudness war.
That was supposed to be the whole point of CDs: they were capable of higher fidelity and dynamics than was ever possible with vinyl or other analog forms. But people chose loudness over sound quality, which means that vinyl is superior in most cases.
@@hotwax9376 people did not choose it, the producers, labels and studios forced volume at the expense of quality upon people in order to make their product "stand out".
@@cbcdesign001 hot wax 93 though isn't all wrong. Humans are attracted to clarity and loudness. To people that don't understand how music works, they think louder is better but not when the quality has been sacrificed. There is a volume knob for a reason, so you can blast quality dynamic music, sausage waveform music hurts your ears more after longer time, sounds less punchy and vibrant
Interesting...
I have the '96 "remastered" version that sounds just the same as the '85 original release, as if it was rerelease. The latest remastered edition is the over compressed one.
@DEEJMASTER 333 Exactly right. CDs may have better fidelity and dynamics, but they usually don't in practice because of the loudness war.
This original 1986 CD is a full digital recording (one of the first). I don't know why it would ever need to be remastered anyway. On all the remastered CD's it no longer said Full digital recording 1996, 2000 and 2006. So, dose this mean the remaster CD's are second generation analog masters? Which one you think is going to sound the best? One last thing. The remastered versions are compressed for maximum volume. So, I'am with you, remastered doesn't always mean better.
The remasters all had the same basic workflow as the original; mastered from digital mix tapes, through largely analogue equipment to digital. The biggest difference is that the remasters had limiting applied in the digital domain to "make it loud". They could easily have just taken the original masters and clone them to DDP format without losing any quality.
mikimike yes, and the sad part is that most people don't realize how their being deceived about these vinyl records today. The vinyl records today come from digital. The CD's come from digital. Vinyls used to be recorded in analog. CD's used to be a transfer from analog to digital. Both sounded better than they do now.
I have this remastered CD in my collection and it doesn't sound like that. Guess not all remastering is done equally.
@@Smartguy561 Some current albums ARE recorded analog though.
Mr.Sojek, UA-cam sound quality is not up to par with CD quality, actually any song of any genre would sound much better on CD than any UA-cam format
I wish there were more people doing these comparisons where the levels are averaged and how you switch back and forth between the two. Nice work!
Not long time ago I compared the "LEAVE IN SILENCE" on this two REMASTERED edition. The first the "A BROKEN FRAME" Hybrid Remastered SACD-CD Collectors Edition (DMCD2, 0094637006023; Master tape resurrection and transfer at FX Copyroom) from 2006:
www.discogs.com/Depeche-Mode-A.../release/967926
The second "THE SINGLES 81 > 85" Remastered Edition (LCDMUTEL1, 5016025682201; All tracks compiled and remasterd at The Exchange) from 1998:
www.discogs.com/Depeche-Mode-The.../release/1432770
On the album remastered version 'dull, quieter, is not so clear', but on the compilation remastered version (eight years earlier) however an absolute reference audio quality! 'Clear, dynamic, very nicely restored version' - otherwise any Hi-Fi system can be tested! ;-)
Unfortunately they are not working on the Collectors Edition... :-(
ua-cam.com/video/_Z02bdcL_N8/v-deo.html
Exactly, I always find the original versions better because of the greater dynamic range, way more pleasing to listen to :)
"Not all vinyl is created equal or clean!"
I'm glad you said this because a lot of people seem to automatically think that vinyl is good. Most of it is junk, especially the stuff from the mid/late 80s. The stuff was super thin, often not the best quality plastic and usually cut from a digital source or the lathe was run from a digital delay line. Today, most vinyl is cut from the same over-baked master as the CD to boot. I do admit, though, when you get GOOD vinyl, there's nothing like it!
Yeah this is one of the best example I have seen, you put more work into making this than I often do.
what a disaster... even on 2 quid laptop speakers difference is heartbreaking...
I also don;t buy remastered stuff, it's just louder, worse version of originals, what is the point, except the $$$ ??
One of the side effects from hyper-limiting the audio for the sake of loudness is it destroys the higher level detail while bringing up the lower level detail, such as reverb. So yeah, it sounds like there's more reverb even though they didn't actually add any.
I found this album (Brother in Arms) in my parents CD collection the other day. I remember buying it in 1986 and losing it in the 90's. My parents had it all the time but never once listened to it! I played it on my HiFi the other night and couldn't believe how much I had to turn it up to hear it properly. I have over £3000 worth of Hifi and couldn't understand why I needed to crank it up so much. However, having watched a number of 'Loudness Wars' videos I now realise why. And thinking about it, although I had to increase the volume somewhat, the sound was pure, warm, crisp and each instrument was as clear as a sunny day.
They messed up a lot of the dynamics.
Some remastered CDs sound much better than the original CD/record, others are worse, and in general CDs from the 80s are worse than the records from the same era. Those CDs were shrill, thin and cold. The Metallica "Death Magnetic" clip that's here on UA-cam is one of the worst brickwallings I've heard, whereas the digital remaster of the Doors' first album from 1999 is one of the best. Listen to "Break on through", especially the verse. It's a work of art.
mcnyregrus I agree.. Roxette First album vs latest remastered.. Flat and harsh vs warm and full.. I could not beleave it.. For 80s cd you need loudness button on your amp
classical remastered cd sounds better because the music literally needs dynamics to sound good, there was no such thing as compression in the 19th century hahaha
Studies showed that when the same recording is played back to back at slightly different levels, listeners percieved the louder one to be better. The levels slowly started creeping upwards .5dB at a time ever since. Looks like there may be some hope. I checked out the new Beatles mono remaster and they did a good job. U2's latest record is 2dB lower (still heavily limited though) than their previous one. The key is public awareness.
Great example. The rhythm section drives you along on the early version and the later compressed version it is drowned out with the wall of sound. This isn't about the format or sampling rate of digital. It is about the mastering (marketing) process. Thanks for this great video. (I'll go put on this album now and enjoy!)
Thank you for posting this. I notice you are you are very kind to people that don't hear the difference at first. Hopefully people become more educated about the loss of dynamic range and the music industry will begin to respond.
There's been plenty of petitions from engineers, producers, musicians and audiophiles all over the world to create a standard for masters like there are for motion picture film and DVD. The record companies pretty well ignore them. The most recent idea I've heard was to put a sticker the crest ratio (peak to RMS level) on the CD. Record companies seem to almost WANT to fail because they continuously refuse to listen to public demands both in production, medium and style.
I just discovered the loudness war as I've been rebuilding my classic rock collection. I always assumed that "remastered" CDs would sound better, but I have been horrified by results in videos like this one. I first noticed issues when I compared the 1987 first pressing of Blizzard of Ozz with a remastered one. The volume jumped halfway up when I switched from the original to the new version. The "remaster" sounded condensed and flat, as if the drum set was one of those little practice sets. The guitar sounded like it was recorded on one of those cheap 2-track personal studio machines. I'm glad I discovered vids like this before I made a serious investment in my music collection. I have since been seeking out original first pressings of most CDs. Thanks so much!
+Andrew sd: Where are you getting those "original first pressings of most CDs"? I don´t want re-mastered CDs...
+Europa Escenario Estudio Hey, the best place to buy old 1980s and early 1990s CDs is eBay. Do some Googling to find out the record label, code numbers, or year that the original pressing was released, then enter in that information into an eBay search. You can also find a lot of information out about first master pressings on Steve Hoffman Forums. Now, there are some remasters that actually do sound better than original pressings, but it's always best to check reviews on Amazon or the Hoffman forums to see whether or not it would be worth it to track down the original. With eBay, it is really quite easy and affordable though.
Thanks, Man!
Totally agree Andrew, I'm no Ozzy fan, but I can completley relate to what you are saying. Def Lep's classic "Hysteria" has been destroyed in it's "new found remaster" form. It is all such as gimmick. Yes, ebay has been good to me "updating" remasters with originals.
whats also something about this remaster thing is: the company reserves the rights to a record longer if they re release it, so obviously they dont remaster it for the listener, more to renew their property.
Not only that, but the record companies deduct the cost of remastering/rereleasing from the ARTISTS' share of the royalties, with or without their knowledge or permission.
IP fucks up everything once again
It is wrong to use replaygain on foobar or should I play music exactly how it is ? What do you recommend ?
Replay gain is cool because it simply adjusts the playback level, as long as it uses negative gain only (I haven't tried it so I don't know) and not positive gain. Positive gain is bad because it can cause clipping. Great question, BTW.
Thanks for explaining. I've heard a couple of my music connoisseurs say their vinyl was better quality than the cd. Here, I can hear the difference via my cell phone alone. I hear the likened absence of a stairwell echo when switched to the remastered, ..kinda like the difference between AM & FM Stereo radio, but not quite as notable here.
Just found your old post. Thanks for explaining where the "Music" I hate compression.
Ran across your video. Guess I could be considered an audiophile that went into hibernation and came back out to a new and unfamiliar audio world. I built some really nice systems back when I was in my teens and twenties. Systems were always built to accurately reproduce the sound the producers intended. Well I'm in my 40's now and just completed what should be a very high end system complete with soundproofing. To celebrate the moment I purchased a few new CD's and popped them in for a listen. Sounded like crap to me. Had one of my teenage girls listen. Of course she thought it was fine. Played some of my older music from back in the day and pointed out the differences I heard. I think I saw the light bulb illuminate within in her. So I tuned and tuned and tuned. Finally gave up under the premise "some recordings are just dirty". Turns out my system is playing as designed. Garbage in, garbage out. Funny thing is my research shows most audiophiles recommending many of the tracks I used back in the mid to late 90's including Dire Straits. Don't even get me started on the plethora of other formats (MP3, Pandora, etc).
I am at a similar point. I have been building up my Hifi for the last 7 years, and now have over £3000 worth of set up. BUT..... I'm finding stuff that I used to enjoy, less and less enjoyable. Doesn't that defeat the object of upgrading? I'm coming to the conclusion that CD's recorded in the last 20 years SUCK!
BigDogsDangler
That was the argument with engineer working in Motown back in the 60s. They wanted their masters to be "loud and clear" on transistor radios, despite being distorted messes on HiFi systems.
wado1942 Just received one of my test disks. My Disc: The Sheffield/A2TB Test Disc. Tracks 69 & 70 show this effect with amazing clarity (tough to get the full difference on youtube although it is still bad enough to be heard. Pulling some tracks off hd tracks now. Really can't believe they did this to music.
Shain Andrews Yeah, even #70 doesn't show how bad many modern pop albums are. Some are so hot, they crackle! "HD" just means it's 24-bit and possibly higher sample rate than 48KHz, not necessarily that the levels are more reasonable. I said it elsewhere and I'll say it again, I'd rather have a 44.1K 16-bit master, even an MP3 with the full dynamics than a crushed to death high res master.
Stephen Baldassarre Couldn't agree more. You can sample the crap out of a terribly crushed master, doesn't make it sound any better. Since I'm just getting back into this game can you recommended some sources for quality masters? I literally stepped out of the game as the loudness wars started so I had no idea the industry did this until about two months ago.
FANTASTIC! Clear and simple visual and acaustical example. You can clearly see and clearly hear the difference. Now it's easy to explain to people what is this loudness war.
yeah thanks for confirming my toughts, and Im happy to ear things go well for you!
Hey, wado1942, I'm a newbie to this way of listening to music, and I've really enjoyed your videos thus far. Theoretically, I understand how the compressor works completely. But I do not understand why overcompression always seems to result in a muddy "underwater" kind of sound. Are the high frequencies always the ones to go first? I mean, apart from dynamic range being sacrificed, it seems like the bass and mid-lows come to the foreground and the sharp highs go down. Is that right?
@ExilLarkdanx
Thanks for the reference. I have to say though that "88-91dB" has no bearing on actual level on the disk. Do you have a measurement for the crest ratio or RMS level on disk?
Thanks for the A/B comparison between the original and remastered versions. Yours is the best "Loudness Wars" vidoe.
Even if the master was made on tape, a VERY small percentage of cutting houses can keep the signal analogue all the way through the process. It requires very rare & expensive tape machines that are made specifically for making vinyl masters because a preview of the audio signal has to feed the lathe computer to cut the groove before the actual signal gets cut into said groove. The standard since the early 80s (starting in the late 70s) has been to use a digital delay to feed the cutter head.
In sound editors there is a Normalise option to maximise the peak volume. Does this destroy the music? I don't see this as loudness though as there is no compression involved to make the lower sounds louder, it's just like turning the volume up. Thoughts?
Thank you very much for this demonstration! It took you probably quite a bit of work. Much appreciated.
I did some research on the concept of UA-cam doing dynamic compression. It looks like that was something that was introduced and discontinued in 2008. Complaints led UA-cam to re-encode the videos from the original uploaded files to allow the full dynamic range.
is this true for all mp3 files too?? Am i correct in saying that even the higher bit rate mp3's wont correct this flaw...what about SACD's?
@forgottencitizen if it has audio output, it has a soundcard... and afaik the bit conversion to cd allows +3dB?
Some people do separate mastering jobs for vinyl, but you're right. Almost all modern vinyl releases are every bit as clipped & limited as the CDs. Except there's additional tone shaping & level adjustments required for vinyl making it sound even more distorted. That's why I always try to do some research before choosing to buy anything.
@slask25 Actually, there was a study conducted a few years ago where different masters of the same song were sent through a common radio processor for a listening test. The input levels between masters varied as much as 10dB but the output was the same on all of them. The only difference was the pre-crushed mixes sounded even more distorted because of the phase rotation + clipping/limiting of the radio processor.
@forgottencitizen whats' wrong about exceeding it to about 1-2 dB? almost any soundcard can handle that without distorting it...
@Frungi Agreed, that's why most replay systems have some kind of compressor built into them. You can chose dynamic range if you want good sound or you can choose squashed if you want constant level. I'll maintain, though, that extreme transient limiting does not help in either case. Parallel compression or low threshold, low ratio compression is much more effective for that purpose.
Wow I didn't notice at first but after listening for a few seconds it is a big difference.
Yeah, I actually liked the remaster until I went back to the original. Tom Petty's "Damn the Torpedoes" remaster is REALLY bad.
@Bassbait That's from compressing the stereo mix, not just drums. The drums peak above everything else, so if you hyper-compress the mix, the drums will control the everything else. I get that a lot now. The sick thing is, a lot of guys insist on crushing the mix, DURING mixing, rather than letting a specialist (mastering engineer) handle it, who can do it much more transparently. When people send me crushed mixes, I just tell them there's nothing that can be done for it without a remix.
@krokigrygg
Surveys conducted back in the 60s said that louder radio stations held on to their listeners something like 2-3 seconds longer than quiet ones. Of course, radio processors make the loudness of the albums completely irrelevant so it comes down to shuffle mode on iPods. Bands don't want their own song to be less loud than the competition. I don't understand that either because the user's already bought the song by the time it's on their iPod.
Seems like they bumped up the bass too much and it pushes the vocals into the background.
What do you guys think some of the best mixed albums are? I think Steven Wilson has put out some stuff that sounds incredible.
@wado1942 Thank-you for the reply. They could make the shiny little disc sound amazing if they wanted to. HDCD was a bust along with DVD Audio, and it would be mind blowing what they could do with a Blue Ray audio format. I have invested in my "last cd player" and listen to cd's and vinyl with a 1961 vintage tube amplifier that I restored. I am no snob, but people who don't care about quality audio help make sure it will disappear. Thanks for educating people. You are making a difference.
I have bought the Queen Platinum 3 Disc collection. I bought it new but the copyright date is from 2001 if I remember. Would you consider that compressed? Because I avoided the digital 2011 remasters for the compression and am hoping it's not the same as the platinum without my knowledge.
I would have to hear it to know for sure. As much as I appreciate Queen (and May especially), I don't own any of their records.
Generally, almost everything is compressed; it's just a matter of whether or not it's OVER-COMPRESSED. Most of the stuff I've gotten to master in recent years was already so heavily compressed in the mixing stage that I actually have to use expansion in the mastering stage to get some life back in it.
@SlimeTron5000
I did bring up the level a little beforehand to help with level matching.
I didn't notice too much difference in this example except the keyboards/vocals were louder compared to the drums. Did you play them at equal volume (comparing a normalised version 1 to version 2)?
@vbrindle Normalizing is not as destructive as limiting & clipping etc because it does not alter the dynamics or crest factor of the music. I will state, though, that almost all digital processes add distortion. Exceptions to this are simple summing and increasing the level by exactly 6.02dB (assuming you're still not clipping the signal). Now, increasing the level by 6dB or 6.04dB will increase quantization error, but if you're using a good DAW, it shouldn't be enough to notice.
@Jerrysway The original recording was done on 1/2" 24-track digital tape. The master is U-Matic digital stereo cassette. The remaster used here may have been taken from the PCM mix tape or the master tape, but not the 1/2" DASH. That said, even if it was recorded on analogue, there wouldn't be that much degradation. I've remastered stuff from the 70s that was only -.5dB from original spec.
I knew that speakers now a days have a bigger possible dynamic range but never knew the extent of the compression they use on modern cds, just to obtain a Louder sound.
Headphones on - I can certainly here the difference...wow. I have just listened to a old cd and a modern re-release of the same song. Quite astonishing. Thanks for info!!
which remasters that you know of do you think have been done properly?
so what exactly does this do?
and what song are you using?
can anyone answer me?
@waterinawell Limiting/clipping harms the quality of the audio regardless of the medium. MP3s are actually much worse and the lower the bit rate, the more harm said treatment does. SACDs are somewhat exempt from the loudness war and in fact, limiting & clipping can't be done in a DSD domain. If they want to digitally slam the levels for SACD, it would first have to be converted to PCM, which degrades the sound, process it and convert back. It does happen though, just not often.
@TimpBizkit You can't normalize them or they won't be equal loudness anymore. They are, however, within 0.2db of each other for this example. Since the drums are crushed, that will have a LITTLE effect on overall loudness, causing the other instruments to be increased very slightly in level.
The ironic thing about the loudness wars is the inability to be able to listen to the affected music loudly. Optimally compressed music can have it's volume cranked up with comfort and ease to a louder degree than ridiculously over-compressed music, which can only be listened to comfortably at low volumes.... that's if its listenable at all.
That's a really good point. I suspect it's because the sound is so fatiguing, it's hard to handle high volumes. On the other hand, if you turn down the music too much, it sound really wimpy whereas a more modestly mastered album still has energy and punch.
@vbrindle I wouldn't use normalise. The basic way to explain it, is if everything sounds loud, nothing stands out so you lose a lot of clarity.
Best way is to get it as close as you can to -0.1db in the mix (never over), then pull the master back so it peaks at about -3db. Then master it using an adaptive limiter and multipressor, which compresses various frequencies rather than the whole sound (ie add more punch to the bass).
@IStoleYourPotatoes Thanks for the kind words. I started noticing the shortcomings of CD early, but they could definitely sound better than they do. I'm a fan of SACD and it's a shame the very few albums available in the format are often just converted from PCM sources. I could never get DVD-A disks to play in my DVD-A player. There's so many variations of the format, it's hard to maintain compatibility. Thing is, the consumers wanted to have 4,000 songs in their pocket more than quality.
Try listening at a lower volume. Some systems tend to compress the audio as a side effect of not having enough headroom. Lower volume levels don't stress the amp's power supply as much so that may be more revealing.
I appreciate that. I just wish I had a more severe real world example because this remaster sits around -10dBfs which is bad enough to take away a lot of the drum impact and dulls the sound a little but doesn't create that super-distorted mush most new masters have.
@TheDaedalEVE That's very true. In the 90s, virtually every portable music player & a lot of car stereos had compressors to keep the levels even. The technology has evolved to a point where that can be done very cheaply and much more transparently than back then. It would be my preference that such a feature be built into devices like that so the consumer had a choice. The other thing would be to provide two masters, which is something a lot of my clients are requesting now.
It makes me cry why oh why do record companies ruin great music, thanks for the insight I am now very miserable
@SpringIsBACK
Sorry, I don't have any other examples because I tent do avoid remasters. There's some on the net though. There's a great example of Abba's "Super Troopers" lurking around UA-cam somewhere.
@gusiskirby
Hard limiters are not common in live sound but overcompression and overdriving the amps is common which has a similar effect.
@BioYuGi Concentrate on the peaks like the snare and the air around the snare and you'll notice it sounds choked and small on bad remasters
@wado1942 yep, but you should reupload in 720p, youtube improves 720p audio A LOT over 360p. It seems they use audio bitrate proportional to video BR.
@foketesz just to chime in to your post... the subjective ear/brain usually hears louder as "better". This is the perception upon initial listening. Compressed music always seems to sound more satisfying at first. (because it's louder)Fatique also sets in very soon, within 5 to 10 minutes! Reality is that compressed music is overall far less satisfying, but "tricks" the listener into thinking it's better. Music is mostly dynamic, so if we want to hear & feel more punch, just turn up the volume
@the81kid That's a very good point and I've felt the same way for a long time, though you put it more eloquently. One time when I had somebody in my isolation booth (which wasn't even complete), they said it was deafening without all the noise of the world!
@burtshello
White stripes stuff is pretty hot on CD too. BTW, LOTS of albums are recorded & mixed with analogue equipment.
The 2006 example was ripped directly from the CD layer of the 25th anniversary SACD. The 1986 example was ripped directly off of disk as well. Both examples were loaded into the same timeline of a top quality audio editor with no manipulation other than overall levels. Part of the effect of heavy limiting is loss of clarity & generation of artificial sub harmonics. I also suspect the engineer may have rolled off the top end slighly to soften the transients before limiting.
@wado1942 Why 48KHz, 44.1 simply isn't enough to get those high frequency transients, why not go for 96KHz, or 192KHz?
@zachabend Actually, I'm doing a project where some of the songs are to be squashed for effect and others not. My solution was to limit the snot out of those songs, but pull back the levels to match the rest of the material. Therefore, it's done PURELY for effect and not perceived loudness. Limiting & clipping 99.999% of the time is done merely for the sake of appearing louder than somebody else's material.
What little experience I've had with "HD" tracks, they're just as slammed as the CDs and MP3s. Sure, there's a lot more low-level detail, but what's the point when the normal portions are squishy & distorted?
Thanks, this is a really good example of how it effects the quality. Now I have a video I can link to the younger guys out there when I explain to them that their music sounds like crap compared to what it used to be. Without them thinking I'm attacking their music :P
@monty78pig The bandwidth limit for DVD is about 9mbps, so 4-channel 48K 24-bit is already 4.608mbps, plus you have to have video content of some kind. There just isn't enough bandwidth for 96KHz unless you want to go with stereo only. I don't hear much difference between 96KHz and 192KHz personally. My plan is to do 24-bit quad and interleave dithered 16-bit 48KHz stereo for those who don't have surround so that will cover my bases.
@apnixlover900
Most recordings from the 50s/60s are on tape so crackles/pops aren't usually an issue. Though tapes weren't handled very carefully. It was common for masters to be made from 6th or later generations from bouncing. Every time the rights got bought by another label, the previous would send a copy of the master. That could happen several times for a song. In that case, PROPER remastering is more research (often skipped) to find an earlier generation than actual audio tweaking.
Hey, that's exactly why I liked this album, dynamics. You should hear the Dolby 5.1 remix of this. It's so heavily compressed, the level just drops like a rock when the drums are playing.
Those tiny differences makes huge impact on my vision of remastering.
the sad truth is the buyers don't usually have the ear for understanding the huge difference, and are simply drawn in by the words "remastered" on their favorite album. Suckered in by this crappy money hungry music industry that adds no value to the creativity by real artists.
The thing is there is actually no huge difference to say the least. :)
@EddieAlda
Actually, that is one of the reasons I started listening to vinyl.
Such extreme compression was out of the question for that medium, plus, you got to hear what all that great music really sounded like to most ears back when that stuff first came out.
I love the thick, warm sound of vinyl compared to the cold-harsh digital sound.... especially the compressed garbage that's out now.
The high quality version linked in the description is the link to this exact same one.
:( So Hi-Fi is slowly dying?Is this happening mostly to albums in dance/pop & co.,or with jazz,folk &co. as well?
Brothers In Arms was recorded digitally, so what is there to remaster?
Really cool! Thanks for doing this!
@zerogravity121
No joke, not only are they both CD, the whole album was recorded digitally, mixed to digital and mastered to digital. They remastered it so they could put "Digitally remastered" on the cover and hope people would somehow think it's better.
@wado1942 I got the latest "In the Court..." recently and it does sound very good.
You say you have much worse examples -- do you have "much worse" examples, "before" and "after"? Maybe that would make the difference clearer to those who claim they can't hear it (probably they have little critical listening experience, or poor equipment, or both.)
@VinylLad
With origial masters, that's generally the case. In my experience with new vinyl prints, most come from the same crushed, improperly adjusted (for vinyl) masters as the CD/MP3s
@movieking88 I really want to listen to large Klipsch tower speakers. I think that after listening to those kind of speakers one will no longer consider headphones as the first audiophile choice.
Only thing I would do with the first dire straits is just to normalise to 0dB peak and possibly lower the highest stray snare peaks by 1dB or less and renormalise. That gets more signal hotness but doesn't alter dynamics noticeably.
It's like if someone cranked up the equalizer. Why?
@ydidntIthinkofthat
I can't speak for previous remasters but the new mono remasters are pretty well done. No added compression, limiting or clipping.
I think there is another louder mastering of this the CD layer of the SACD, it used to be iTunes but its gone now.
@whatchannelisthisnow That's a bit of an odd statement because "Money for Nothin'" was recorded to digital, mixed to digital and mastered to digital. The production was designed from the beginning for CD.
The funny thing is, music on the old Edison cylinders typically had about a 12-18dB dynamic range. With Vinyl, it was basically the same, but less noise on the medium. Then CD came and albums of the early 80s like this had about a 24dB range. Now on modern CDs (and MP3s), it's about 4dB!
@TheBruceNet Simply normalizing and making a new disk would just add distortion. The best option is to turn up the volume knob!
Important video.
Unfortunately, many mastering engineers and music producers and record companies have 'Over-loud' themselves and work with their ego, instead their ears.
I always use GP9 at 15 I/S 400nWb/M IEC (even my AG-440c) and never really had HF issues. There's a few decks with HX on it that makes the high end cleaner still, though I don't have one. If you don't mind losing a little bottom end or getting super expensive heads, there's always 30 I/S too. I've never recorded 30 I/S myself but my 440 is ready for it.
Digital has a lot of issues too, mostly because of the harsh filters used to restrict the bandwidth, so I usually only master to digital.