Creating examples of "Loudness Wars" effect

[old tech]

Seems to me whoever made that statement might have been trying to steer owners of the original Led Zeppelin CD catalog to buy subsequent remasters of it, or, first time CD buyers also to do so. Hmmmm.

Well it is a change from the unrelenting steering away from CDs and other digital media towards LPs as many of their more luddite members often do.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

Well it is a change from the unrelenting steering away from CDs and other digital media towards LPs as many of their more luddite members often do.

Well, nobody seems willing to acknowledge it, but I believe that so-called flat-topped, loudness mastering of CD is one factor, among others such as nostalgia, pushing listeners back to LP.

 

[gregorio]

[1] Man, this response really seems to come from a pro-remastering stance if I may say so.
[2] A lot of us grew up with certain albums or singles that we played until we wore them out, and are familiar with. Then, twenty-thirty years later, a new version is issued, either remixed or remastered, sounding nothing like the version we grew up on.
[3] Some of us obtained DAWS, and in the cases of 'then and now CDs' have also visual evidence of the modifications.

1. I'm neither pro nor anti, I am a realist though, those who own the rights to recordings need to generate revenue from their assets.

2. Although those albums/singles may have sold millions or even tens of millions 30 years ago, they are no longer the popular music of today. The rights holders have two choices: A. They could just reissue the original, with no remastering, aimed at those who want to buy again what they bought 30 years ago or B. Remaster it to appeal to a younger demographic. Even though "A" is much cheaper to produce, it's uneconomical, not enough people buy them to make it worthwhile. B. Is economically worthwhile, which is why they do it!

3. Of course there are modifications, if there weren't any modifications it wouldn't be a remaster, it would be a reissue of an existing master!

You're just going round in circles now, pretty much all of these points have already been dealt with!

G

 

[RRod]

Well, nobody seems willing to acknowledge it, but I believe that so-called flat-topped, loudness mastering of CD is one factor, among others such as nostalgia, pushing listeners back to LP.

The people I know buying LPs don't give two flying sh**s about sound quality.

 

[bigshot]

I have a couple of friends who buy all those current expensive LP reissues of 70s and 80s rock. They talk a lot about sound quality in a vague sort of way, and they have the same routines about hot mastering that sonic truth has. But they really have no idea how to actually improve sound other than to buy records that cost a lot of money. When they come over to see a movie or listen to music at my house, they say that they wish their system sounded like that. I nicely tell them that it can, but they have to focus on the things that matter. They nod and look thoughtful and don't say any more about it. I think they really don't spend a lot of time listening to music. The LPs are more of a fetish object to them. They like the covers and the shiny look of the grooves.

As for the rise in sales of LPs, that is a lie. You see people pointing to charts like this...

But they don't show charts like this...

 

[tansand]

Huh? So what you're suggesting is therefore: The opinion of many random passerbys is worthless because one other random passerby says it's not "good"?

BTW, your quote of the "argumentum ad populum" fallacy is absurd because the proposition is itself based on populism. If a piece of popular music is not designed to be popular then it's not a piece of popular music in the first place!

G

You're getting tied up in your own nonsense, calm down.

 

[tansand]

I respect your choice, we all have different subjective experiences. III is my favourite led zep album but I never really liked the Diament CD. It sounded different, very bland, compared to my LP and cassette recording of it which is how I listened to it in my youth. I didn't like the Marino remaster either and it wasn't until the 2014 remaster that I preferred my digital copy to the LP.

I respect your choice too, man, seeing as we both have excellent taste in Zep records. I listened to III again last night before bed, and I'm totally puzzled why you would feel it's bland or lifeless, it's sound is built out of the beautiful reverbs and clipping various things. Tonally it's fine.. All I could come up with was Bonzo's drums are minimized in general, and Page's acoustic guitars are rolled off in the highs, both clearly creative decisions. I couldn't imagine that any changes to the sonics wouldn't destroy all the beautiful reverbs and the balanced seperation (or not) between the instruments.

It seems to me a mastering engineer should be limited to finding better condition source, or EQ to fit the format, maybe a little compression for same. They shouldn't be re-interpreting the sound of the master tapes in any case.

Cheers.

 

[tansand]

But they don't show charts like this...

That's still a lot of records, the same as 1988? I'm surprised!

 

[tansand]

Actually I don't mind the early RCA UK Bowie LPs, I'd only rate the early RCA CDs as better. The Ryko and EMI remasters don't sound anywhere near as good IMHO. Those RCA CDs sell for good money these days.

I have a black triangle Let's Dance coming, decided I had to have it after tracking down the 1st sony mastering of Dark Side of the Moon.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

1. I'm neither pro nor anti, I am a realist though, those who own the rights to recordings need to generate revenue from their assets.

2. Although those albums/singles may have sold millions or even tens of millions 30 years ago, they are no longer the popular music of today. The rights holders have two choices: A. They could just reissue the original, with no remastering, aimed at those who want to buy again what they bought 30 years ago or B. Remaster it to appeal to a younger demographic. Even though "A" is much cheaper to produce, it's uneconomical, not enough people buy them to make it worthwhile. B. Is economically worthwhile, which is why they do it!

3. Of course there are modifications, if there weren't any modifications it wouldn't be a remaster, it would be a reissue of an existing master!

You're just going round in circles now, pretty much all of these points have already been dealt with!

G

Gregorio:
"B. Remaster it to appeal to a younger demographic."

It might make economic sense, and sell more legacy catalog, but is altering the sound of that catalog right to do?

Respectfully, I say NO.

By changing the sound of those albums, you're changing the perception those first-time listeners, born 20-40 years after the albums originally released, have of them when they listen to them.

Like I said, let's "remaster" the Mona Lisa and the Sistene Chapel ceiling to "appeal to" today's tourists and art fans. Paint the Eiffel Tower in pastel neon colors to "appeal to younger demos"?

SMDH...

 

[tansand]

Compromise is a helluva drug.

 

[Steve999]

Like I said, let's "remaster" the Mona Lisa and the Sistene Chapel ceiling to "appeal to" today's tourists and art fans. Paint the Eiffel Tower in pastel neon colors to "appeal to younger demos"?

That could indeed be a bit much.

 

[bigshot]

Like I said, let's "remaster" the Mona Lisa and the Sistene Chapel ceiling to "appeal to" today's tourists and art fans.

The Mona Lisa hasn't been "remastered" yet, but the Sistine Chapel certainly has. It was painstakingly "restored" to a condition that might be even brighter and clearer than it looked originally. Some people say that the layers of lacquer and soot that were removed were actually layers of overpainting, and the underpainting has been laid bare now. But the difference is that those particular works aren't commercial products like Toto or Boston.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

The Mona Lisa hasn't been "remastered" yet, but the Sistine Chapel certainly has. It was painstakingly "restored" to a condition that might be even brighter and clearer than it looked originally. Some people say that the layers of lacquer and soot that were removed were actually layers of overpainting, and the underpainting has been laid bare now. But the difference is that those particular works aren't commercial products like Toto or Boston.

I consider "commercial products like Toto or Boston" to be works of art, in the same vein as Symphony No. 5 by Beethoven or Barber of Seville by Rossini. Once released, not to be effed with. Of course the classical examples must now be performed by living orchestras, as their creators are long since passed.

 

[TheSonicTruth]

That would be a little on the nose.

"on the nose"?