Remastered cd's & hearing difficulties

[worthingpagan]

Has any one else noticed just how poor the sound quality appears to be on many of these new remastered cd's? I've been very disappointed with many i've purchased lately. In many cases they sound compressed to death, tinny, boomy and half the musicality seems to have disappeared altogether. It's got to the point where i'm now hunting for original 1980's recordings on ebay, even though the remastered versions are selling quite cheaply, which may well explain things. I wonder how the vinyl has fared? :scratch:

[Rare Bird]

:rolleyes:

[worthingpagan]

:rolleyes:


:confused:

[Tim]

In my experience a lot of the 're-masters' (and I use that word loosely) issued in the last decade leave a lot to be desired and many of them are shockingly bad - the David Bowie EMI Abbey Road re-masters are an example and the reason why his original RCA's now go for around £30.00 on eBay. If you want some guidance regarding good recordings, check this forum;

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/

[Audioman]

The loudness wars is a well known mastering phenomena that started in the mid 90's and continued to get worse. The degree of compression and brickwalling varies from title to title and musical genra. Not all CD's suffer from it unduly but most remasters limit your ability to adjust volume properly on a hi-fi. Sound is 'optimised' for boom boxes and car stereos it seems.

The price of Cd's has nothing to do with this. This is due to falling sales and lower costs of online selling. Many CD's sold are still the original masterings before the loudness problem became bad. Recently bought Mike Oldfield's 'Songs of Distant Earth' and Lucinda William's 'Car Wheels on A Gravel Road' which are original masterings. The Lucinda Williams is cut louder being 1998 but not unduly so. The current ELP 'Brain Salad Surgery' and CD disc on the new King Crimson CD/DVDA releases are not cut loud so there are probably quite a few good sounding titles out there obtainable new.

In general vinyl does not suffer so much as dedicated masterings are usualy done that are far less compressed. Some however just seem to use the CD mastering or the compression is in the original recording. This may partly explain the increasing popularity of vinyl at present.

3Gmex_4hreQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war


BTW The Bob Dylan titles listed in the wicki article sound fine in their vinyl incarnations.

[electric beach]

Has any one else noticed just how poor the sound quality appears to be on many of these new remastered cd's? I've been very disappointed with many i've purchased lately. In many cases they sound compressed to death, tinny, boomy and half the musicality seems to have disappeared altogether. It's got to the point where i'm now hunting for original 1980's recordings on ebay, even though the remastered versions are selling quite cheaply, which may well explain things. I wonder how the vinyl has fared? :scratch:

Totally agree and doing the same :steam:

The criteria for "improvement" seems to be more emphasis on the higher frequencies to present more "detail".

But these remasters are only following the downward trend of mainstream recording quality. I'm very pleased that my youngest daughter (21 - that's her age, not her numerical position) is appreciative of what my system can deliver and she wants me to put her system together when she gets her own place, to have a piece of the action for herself. A potential new generation audiophile, but this recording issue is undermining her enthusiasm. I play a recording like Joni Mitchell's Blue / The last time I saw Richard and the opening piano is a 3D, dynamic, living prescence in the room, she's knocked out that this is even possible and the volume control is up around 3.00 (it's an analogue recording and one of the quietest I possess). So she wants to hear her music do the same, in goes Beyonce's potentially killer voice and out comes the thin, strident, unmusical impression of an unsuccessful X-factor applicant. And the volume control is at 9.00 (6.00 being off).

So having explained the issue she quite rightly clarified "So I can have this amazing sound but I can't listen to my music on it?".

Basically, yes.

[worthingpagan]

The loudness wars is a well known mastering phenomena that started in the mid 90's and continued to get worse. The degree of compression and brickwalling varies from title to title and musical genra. Not all CD's suffer from it unduly but most remasters limit your ability to adjust volume properly on a hi-fi. Sound is 'optimised' for boom boxes and car stereos it seems.

The price of Cd's has nothing to do with this. This is due to falling sales and lower costs of online selling. Many CD's sold are still the original masterings before the loudness problem became bad. Recently bought Mike Oldfield's 'Songs of Distant Earth' and Lucinda William's 'Car Wheels on A Gravel Road' which are original masterings. The Lucinda Williams is cut louder being 1998 but not unduly so. The current ELP 'Brain Salad Surgery' and CD disc on the new King Crimson CD/DVDA releases are not cut loud so there are probably quite a few good sounding titles out there obtainable new.

In general vinyl does not suffer so much as dedicated masterings are usualy done that are far less compressed. Some however just seem to use the CD mastering or the compression is in the original recording. This may partly explain the increasing popularity of vinyl at present.

3Gmex_4hreQ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war


BTW The Bob Dylan titles listed in the wicki article sound fine in their vinyl incarnations.


Thanks for this AM, very informative, and cheers for all the replies, including Andre(:rolleyes::)) ;)

[Z-A]

Agreed, i dont often bother with re-issues, the few that i do have i find hard to listen to. I think they are made to sound better on lo-fi systems.

[The Grand Wazoo]

I think they are made to sound better on lo-fi systems.

In my experience, they're generally not made to sound better on anything. They're just made.

[Barry]

In my experience, they're generally not made to sound better on anything. They're just made.

+1

When ‘Remastered’ CDs appeared in the early ‘noughties’, I was absolutely bowled over by how good they sounded. Until then most of the CDs available had been made using the master tapes designed for LP pressing, which contained ‘tweaks’ to cope with the limitation of that medium. This I believe, though some might find it contentious, is why CDs were given a luke-warm or even hostile reception by audiophiles on their appearance in 1983: all the ‘tweaks’ were revealed in all their naked glory.

The first time I heard an ostensibly re-mastered CD was the Rolling Stones’ compilation “Forty Hot Licks”. The sound was so fresh and exciting, that I was immediately taken back to time in my late teens when I first heard those singles, and the excitement felt at the time.

Since then I have found virtually all remastered CDs to be a significant improvement on the originals: The Doors on WEA; the Island back catalogue, and many others. The remastered Soft Machine "Third" has removed, or at least greatly reduced, the slight but pervasive distortion on the original vinyl and CD versions.

The only exceptions for me have been Carol King’s "Tapestry" (no difference), Roxy Music "Avalon" and the latest remastered CD of the Stones’ "Sticky Fingers" (no real difference but about 3dB louder).

I would concur with the OP in that compression and lack of dynamic range do seem to be prevalent, and suspect it is a deliberate action to cater for the market, especially those who like ‘rave’ and ‘house music’ (not sure if I have pigeon-holed the genre correctly; apologies if I have not, it’s not my 'thing'), who are used to music with very little dynamics.

[Marco]

Hi Barry,

Sorry to interrupt, but please check out the wine thread, when you get a chance, as there's a stonkingly good claret on offer at Aldi, which I think you might like ;)

As you were, chaps!

Marco.

[Barry]

Hi Barry,

Sorry to interrupt, but please check out the wine thread, when you get a chance, as there's a stonkingly good claret on offer at Aldi, which I think you might like ;)

As you were, chaps!

Marco.

Haha Marco - I had already noticed your recommendation: jotted it down and am now looking for my local Aldi store!

Thanks :)

[Welder]

I wonder if anyone fancies nominating a CD that hasn’t had some compression used either in the recording or mixing stage ;)

Yes, it has all got a bit silly but compression isn’t necessarily bad and I very much doubt if many would even notice a small amount of compression used to add impact to a drum kit for example; the usual response is, wow, that sounds good.

We need to be careful not to dismiss recording tools because they are used badly. :)

[Marco]

Haha Marco - I had already noticed your recommendation: jotted it down and am now looking for my local Aldi store!

Thanks

Excellent :)

Marco.

[Smoker]

surprised no mentioned the problem with dark side of the moon, it is all personal taste i guess and no one is ever happy with what they hear as it never matches their initial introduction to it.

dont ask why but ive just listened to the sacd then original cd then vinyl (1973)
very strange, very strange indeed!

ive gone back in time, i swear i saw tom baker along the way.

my preference is the vinyl.

[brian2957]

Noticed this problem years ago where some LPs were described as good or

bad pressings . However most were listenable . CDs seem to have made the

gap between good and bad pressings much larger and as a result I have

CDs which I just don't listen to , some with excellent music on them .

I don't know if anyone here agrees but I find that studio recorded albums

are more liable to be unlistenable whereas music recorded at small live

venues with the minimum of recording equipment can sometimes , not always,

be very good. A few examples of this are Nils Lofgren - Acoustic Live and

some of the 'Unplugged ' recordings. I'm sure there are thousands of these

and I would be willing to investigate any suggestions from members here.

[Barry]

surprised no mentioned the problem with dark side of the moon, it is all personal taste i guess and no one is ever happy with what they hear as it never matches their initial introduction to it.

dont ask why but ive just listened to the sacd then original cd then vinyl (1973)
very strange, very strange indeed!

ive gone back in time, i swear i saw tom baker along the way.

my preference is the vinyl.

The remastered version of DSOTM is a different mixdown to that of the vinyl. To compare it with the original vinyl is invalid.

Listen to the inter-track and background voices, to hear the differences.

[Smoker]

I was just listening to what I had so i can decide what remaster i should buy next. in the end ive opted for the vinyl version of the original remastered one. I was interested in the more expensive cd boxet but wasnt sure if it was worth it.