The Loudness War - your experiences

[LFF]

Quote:

My question is, I replaced some of the "bad" audio files with vinyl rips, are they really better?

Not always. It depends and varies by country, pressing, years, color, cutting engineer, etc etc.
 
For example, the vinyl of Californication is simply the CD master cut on vinyl. Neko Case vinyl is mastered better than the CD's but the vinyl quality is inferior and very noisy. The original CD releases of Led Zeppelin beat the remasters but the original vinyl cuts still sound superior to the original CD's and it's a toss up between the original vinyl cuts or the new vinyl remasters released by Classic Records. The original black triangle CD release of Dark Side of The Moon beats out all other releases including recent vinyl remasters. Then there are the possibilities of SACD, Blu-spec CD, DVDA and other formats. A great example is "A Charlie Brown Christmas" which exists in nearly all formats. The superior version of the original mix is the 45RPM vinyl released by Analogue Productions but you can find acceptable versions of the album on CD thanks to remixing and remastering yet the original mix is hard to find and full of problems. It's a real jungle out there!
 
In the end it comes down to doing your research and finding particular releases for the best version. Usually you can guarantee some quality in the version you pick up by checking who the mastering engineer was for the release. Great names to look for are Steve Hoffman, Kevin Gray, Alan Yoshida, Barry Diament, Joe Tarrantino, Bob Katz, Prof. Keith Johnson and Bob Ludwig. Great companies to look for are Chesky Records, MFSL (MoFi), DCC, Audio Fidelity, Classic Records, Reference Recordings, Sony Gold Mastersound, Sheffield Labs, Original Jazz Classics (OJC), Analogue Productions and Groove Note. Keep in mind that these are guidelines and don't always guarantee a holy grail reference but in general, they are safe bets 90% of the time be it on CD, Vinyl, HDAD, SACD, etc.

 

[s0lar]

Thanks! Though this means that checking each source takes some time.
http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/  seems an excellent source to check the dynamic range.

 

[ramicio]

I've noticed anything that is straight up pop is going to stay on the loudness trend for a while yet.  It's not the fact that things are loud, but the fact that they clip waveforms to achieve this.  There is plenty of older music that is very quiet and doesn't ever reach peak so some stuff is just not making a good use of the dynamic range.  Even the Beatles remasters in 2009 were not loud.  Country music tends to be independent and that music isn't loud.  Even some newer rock isn't loud.  Most music is and it sounds like crap.  I got a copy of Death Magnetic from Guitar Hero 3 and it sounds so much better.  There is actually detail there.  Lars Ulrich is a tool and said he likes the loud version of the album better and he drives around listening to it.  I think any artist who listens to their own music is a total tool.

 

[LFF]

Quote:

Thanks! Though this means that checking each source takes some time.
http://www.dr.loudness-war.info/  seems an excellent source to check the dynamic range.

Dynamic range isn't everything! You need to make sure it was mastered properly. One of the best places to research this is the Steve Hoffman forums.

 

[batphink]

More people are getting fed up with poorly mastered albums.
 
From The Guardian -
Quote:

EMI defends Duran Duran remasters

Label has 'no plans' to recall CDs after complaints about the sound quality – including those from the band themselves

Duran Duran's recently remastered albums are "not necessarily wrong", EMI said this week, after months of criticism by fans and even the band themselves. Despite admitting at least one audio glitch, the label said it has "received both positive and negative comments about the mastering" and has "no plans" to recall the discs.

This spring, EMI released expanded, remastered versions of two of Duran Duran's early albums: the group's self-titled debut, from 1981, and 1983's Seven and the Ragged Tiger. But although these reissues included fancy deluxe editions with postcards, DVDs and rarities, there was one nagging problem: the music. Just days after the discs were released, Duranies were filling message-boards with criticism of the mastering, citing audio "level-bouncing" and other problems. "These new remasters have lost all of their dynamic range, have been compressed into a big brick wall of garbage, and the high range/treble's pushed so high that it's literally painful on the ears to listen to," wrote one fan on Amazon. "The special editions' content and packaging promised to be on the level with the well-known Duranies' passion, but it's no less stunning that someone proved so easy in publishing a flawed audio product on an historic album fans know since 1981," complained another, pushing for a full recall of the discs.

Not only were fans disappointed – the band were too. "I don't for one second believe [Duran Duran] would say 'That sounds amazing!!!', and I don't believe for one second that THEY would want their music destroyed like this," suggested one fan. It seems he was correct. On Twitter, Duran Duran guitarist Andy Taylor slammed the new releases. "Sounds like it was done down the pub," he wrote. "Permission will be buried in a 30-year old contract, but I can express my utter disgust & the remastering's crap." He also condemned EMI's decision to put Duran Duran demos as extras on the reissues. "Shame on all involved," he wrote. "They should be gifting them to fans after 30 years of support."

This week, EMI finally issued a statement addressing the criticism (via Slicing Up Eyeballs). "It has come to our attention that some fans have suggested that the mastering on the recently reissued [albums] is incorrect. Mastering is always subjective, and we acknowledge that the mastering on these versions is different to that of previous remasters, however that does not necessarily make it wrong," the label said. "We will always take on board constructive criticism and act upon it, where we believe it appropriate, and we respect the opinions of the fans."

Although EMI refuses to recall the CDs, it admits that fans have a point: the self-titled album has a definite glitch at the beginning of Girls On Film, which the label blames on "tape deterioration". EMI has also asked fans to stop complaining about the recording engineer who mastered the discs, calling these comments "highly offensive, wholly inappropriate and unjustified". Duran Duran may be asked to sit in the corner.

 

[necropimp]

Quote:

Visually at least, the vinyl rips of the "The National"albums seem better.

not familiar with the albums you mention or the vinyl mastering of said albums but... visually a vinyl rip even from a vinyl sourced from the same compressed master will look better when you look at it in an audio editor than the CD simply because analog audio just can't do a completely flat top waveform
 
recording the analog output of a cd player would result in something that looks very similar to such a vinyl rip

 

[s0lar]

What I make from the text about Duran Duran's mastering is that the company behind it just denies they screwed up.
They also try to tell us that this loudness war is overly exaggerated. Somehow I just wish it was.
But it is not just remastered work, most of the new albums that pop up suffer from a loack of dynamic range.
I really enjoyed albums from The Arcade Fire, The National for example but listening to older tracks just brings a smile to my face.
I mean, I tried to get good audio equipment, it's obviously to listen to every detail, not just loud stuff.

 

[DJGeorgeT]

LOL, so true. I used to drive and listen to my own mixtapes. That was a while back ago.
 
The only time it is OK to drive and listen to your own tunes is if the music is work in progress and you are trying to find if it sounds good in the car

 cus I might change something otherwise.
 
Quote:

 
Lars Ulrich is a tool and said he likes the loud version of the album better and he drives around listening to it.  I think any artist who listens to their own music is a total tool.

 

[ramicio]

Yea, but that kinda belongs in the studio rather than trying to see how something should sound in a noisy environment such as a car.  It's one thing to listen to work on it, but to produce an album, then drive around listening to it after its released is just dumb.  People say Metallica cares about the music and not the money.  They must be stupid too because Lars Ulrich has always gone ape crap over people downloading music.  They did get into music to get rich.  I bet even before they were signed they still wanted people to pay for their music.

 

[necropimp]

wait... it's dumb for a musician to listen to their own music? since when?

 

[Kukuk]

Here's a comparison I did, thought you guys might find it interesting. I compared three different versions of Bob Dylan's Lily, Rosemary, and the Jack of Hearts. I used this song because I'm fairly certain it's the loudest on the album.
 
CD Original Recording/Remaster

 
Blood On The Tracks Sessions CD.

Zoomed in:

 
Half-Speed Master vinyl rip.

 
Make of it what you will! Although none of them sound remotely bad to me.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

The Bob Dylan album remasters on Columbia are good.  The ones I've heard I'd pick over the original releases.  They're an example of good remasters.

 

[Kukuk]

Yep, it was my favorite of the bunch actually. Wasn't a big fan of the vinyl version, since the vocals are a bit muffled, and Dylan doesn't exactly have a crystal-clear voice to begin with.

 

[LFF]

Quote:

The Bob Dylan album remasters on Columbia are good.  The ones I've heard I'd pick over the original releases.  They're an example of good remasters.

They are indeed very good remasters. They could use some more life to them but compared to everything else out there, they are very good! I own quite a few of them.

 

[Ham Sandwich]

 
Quote:

Quote:

The Bob Dylan album remasters on Columbia are good.  The ones I've heard I'd pick over the original releases.  They're an example of good remasters.

They are indeed very good remasters. They could use some more life to them but compared to everything else out there, they are very good! I own quite a few of them.

The remasters of the old albums seem to be good, but Columbia can be inconsistent with the Dylan.  The album "Love And Theft" (released 2001) leaves me wishing more was there in the sound, more air or ambiance or space or stereo or whatever that magic is.  It leaves me longing for whatever it is that's missing and that ends up distracting me from the music.  Fortunately they didn't do the same type of sound when remastering the old albums, at least not the ones I've heard.