[tansand]

Representative article. Another one I couldn't google again was suggesting two cheap computer speakers placed side by side.

https://mixedbymarcmozart.com/2014/12/28/steal-moms-kitchen-radio/

 

[redrol]

Mixing for low volume and/or clock radios? That?

 

[ADUHF]

It's not as far-fetched as it sounds. Audio mastering has in fact been done this way pretty much since its inception. So its really nothing new.

In the olden days, audio engineers would often use terrible-sounding speakers to better approximate the sound of car radios. 45's were mastered to sound good on jukeboxes, or affordable home systems (which were often monophonic, and far from a flat response by today's standards). Because that's where people listened... So from a consumption standpoint, it made perfect sense to do things that way.

The quest for a "flatter sound" didn't really begin in earnest, until maybe sometime around the 1970's, when some early audiophiles began making larger investments in home audio gear. And equalizers (the type that would sit in a stack with your amp and tuner) became more of a staple in home audio setups.

This is why whenever questions come up about the "ideal sound" for a pair headphones, I will often try to make the point that the intended listening space for the recording is often just as important (if not moreso) as anything else.

Audio engineers will master the content to sound good on whatever people are actually listening to. Because that's what they're paid to do!

There is an upside to this equation though... And that upside is that the headphones, IEMs, home theaters and "radios" that people listen to in their cars and home offices (and even mom's kitchen) are getting better and flatter sounding overall. The audio engineers also know this. And should also begin to adapt their mixing and mastering to take this into account.

Ideally, you want your recordings to sound halfway decent on a variety of different gear and transducers. And the only way to really achieve that with any sort of reliability is to master the content so it sounds halfway decent on headphones, speakers, IEMs, etc that are close to a fairly neutral "flat" sound.

If you're mastering content for a specific audience though, then you'd be foolish not to check how it sounds on the equipment favored by those listeners.

 

[ev666il]

I'd say modern remasters sound bad because of the Loudness War, mostly.

 

[ADUHF]

The loudness war is also nothing new, and has existed since the days of 45's and jukeboxes. It has been taken to some fairly ridiculous new extremes though in the digital era. So I'd agree with you on that much.

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

 

[ADUHF]

Normalization is another new practice that may also be having some effect on the mixing, mastering and quality of some new masters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_normalization

If it's done correctly though, then it shouldn't be as destructive to the sound quality as the dynamic range compression used to boost loudness.

 

[ev666il]

In fact, audio normalization should in theory bring to a reduction of Loundess War-driven dynamic compression. If everything's made to sound roughly equal in terms of loudness, there's no longer a reason to slam everything against 0dbFS to make it LOUD.

There's a video on YouTube, don't have it handy now, where an engineer discusses exactly this topic and plays back two tracks normalized: one squashed within an inch of its dynamic life; the other with good DR. The difference in favor of the latter is astonishing.

 

[ADUHF]

In fact, audio normalization should in theory bring to a reduction of Loundess War-driven dynamic compression. If everything's made to sound roughly equal in terms of loudness, there's no longer a reason to slam everything against 0dbFS to make it LOUD.

It's not a subject I'm as familiar with. But that would be a good development imo. Alot of the material I listen to on YouTube still sounds pretty badly boosted. There are also alot of recordings that sound fairly decent though, on a reasonably well-tuned pair of headphones. So perhaps the normalization is beginning to have a little bit of moderating effect on the recording side. I remain hopeful though for more improvements in that direction.

 

[old tech]

It's not as far-fetched as it sounds. Audio mastering has in fact been done this way pretty much since its inception. So its really nothing new.

In the olden days, audio engineers would often use terrible-sounding speakers to better approximate the sound of car radios. 45's were mastered to sound good on jukeboxes, or affordable home systems (which were often monophonic, and far from a flat response by today's standards). Because that's where people listened... So from a consumption standpoint, it made perfect sense to do things that way.

The quest for a "flatter sound" didn't really begin in earnest, until maybe sometime around the 1970's, when some early audiophiles began making larger investments in home audio gear. And equalizers (the type that would sit in a stack with your amp and tuner) became more of a staple in home audio setups.

This is why whenever questions come up about the "ideal sound" for a pair headphones, I will often try to make the point that the intended listening space for the recording is often just as important (if not moreso) as anything else.

Audio engineers will master the content to sound good on whatever people are actually listening to. Because that's what they're paid to do!

There is an upside to this equation though... And that upside is that the headphones, IEMs, home theaters and "radios" that people listen to in their cars and home offices (and even mom's kitchen) are getting better and flatter sounding overall. The audio engineers also know this. And should also begin to adapt their mixing and mastering to take this into account.

Ideally, you want your recordings to sound halfway decent on a variety of different gear and transducers. And the only way to really achieve that with any sort of reliability is to master the content so it sounds halfway decent on headphones, speakers, IEMs, etc that are close to a fairly neutral "flat" sound.

If you're mastering content for a specific audience though, then you'd be foolish not to check how it sounds on the equipment favored by those listeners.

Good points. It is also the reason why many SACDs (though certainly not all) may sound better than their CD counterpart. In mastering for SACDs, the sound engineer can reasonably assume that the listener would be more of an audiophile, have invested in a good sound system and, importantly, will be listening to it in a quiet room environment. It can therefore be mastered with more of the music's dynamics intact as there is no need to compensate for background noise, ear buds and so on.

 

[tansand]

It's not as far-fetched as it sounds. Audio mastering has in fact been done this way pretty much since its inception. So its really nothing new

I know. There are more tools available today. Any optimization for a non hi-fi playback will detract from a hi-fi playback.

In the olden days, audio engineers would often use terrible-sounding speakers to better approximate the sound of car radios. 45's were mastered to sound good on jukeboxes, or affordable home systems (which were often monophonic, and far from a flat response by today's standards). Because that's where people listened... So from a consumption standpoint, it made perfect sense to do things that way.

I'm not saying anything about what makes sense, I'm talking about the reason for the reduction in sound quality of remastered music. Ideally it would improve.

But no.

 

[ADUHF]

I know. There are more tools available today. Any optimization for a non hi-fi playback will detract from a hi-fi playback.

Can you give some examples of what you mean by hi-fi playback?

I'm not saying anything about what makes sense, I'm talking about the reason for the reduction in sound quality of remastered music. Ideally it would improve.

But no.

I am not directly involved in audio production. But my impression is that alot of remastering is done simply to boost loudness, which would indeed tend to degrade the sound quality.

 

[tansand]

Can you give some examples of what you mean by hi-fi playback?

No. I am not interested in derailing the topic. Nice try.

I am not directly involved in audio production. But my impression is that alot of remastering is done simply to boost loudness, which would indeed tend to degrade the sound quality.

They do it to re-sell the records in a 'new', 'improved' form with cash and hype for everyone involved. The crap they do to it to justify it certainly does include compression. Compare the audio of 'Heart of the Sunrise' from Classic Yes, which is Barry Diament straight transferring it from the tape basically, to the version on Joe Gastwirt's remaster of Fragile for an example of what I'm talking about sonically. The original CD of Fragile sounds like they clipped the entire thing, unfortunately.

https://www.discogs.com/Yes-Classic-Yes/release/9481388

https://www.discogs.com/Yes-Fragile/release/1348230

 

[ADUHF]

No. I am not interested in derailing the topic. Nice try.

Denied!

That wasn't really my intention though. "High fidelity" can mean different things to different people. And some examples would help to put your remarks into a little better context.

They do it to re-sell the records in a 'new', 'improved' form with cash and hype for everyone involved. The crap they do to it to justify it certainly does include compression. Compare the audio of 'Heart of the Sunrise' from Classic Yes, which is Barry Diament straight transferring it from the tape basically, to the version on Joe Gastwirt's remaster of Fragile for an example of what I'm talking about sonically. The original CD of Fragile sounds like they clipped the entire thing, unfortunately.

https://www.discogs.com/Yes-Classic-Yes/release/9481388

https://www.discogs.com/Yes-Fragile/release/1348230

Have not heard these releases. Fragile was one of my favorite Yes albums though back in the days when I still owned a phonograph.

 

[tansand]

It's unfortunate, I don't know of a good option for Fragile, the Gastwirt is awful, and the first one is clipped. I'm not sure if there's been anything done since. I'm making do with (that specific release of) Classic Yes. It has Schindleria Praematurus but the Roundabout is some crappy live version.

 

[tansand]

Denied!

That wasn't really my intention though. "High fidelity" can mean different things to different people. And some examples would help to put your remarks into a little better context.

No, it wouldn't. There are different speakers they listen to to do their filthy dirty disgusting repulsive business, good ones and bad ones. You can assume we both know and agree which ones are the hi-fi speakers, or you can continue to try to change the topic to what exactly the definition of 'good' is, as you've been doing.