Roland, I too would love to see it. I don't think you guys realize how much your recommendations mean to some of the poor college student members (like me). I love reading the 10 page threads on cds and making educated guesses as to which version I should buy. Not all of us have the luxury of buying 10 versions to see which one is the best. Also, I think the database idea is awesome. The only thing I would suggest is we leave off discussions of UDI versus UDII because this is easily the most divisive issue on these boards. Going strictly off of the facts, the UDIs and UDIIs are bit identical and if ripped via EAC they will offer the exact same sound if streamed. I know many don't have computers hooked up to their system, but I think thats where it has to be left; I personally am sick of these garbage threads where the two camps duke it out. It is sad to see grown adults always having to take swipes at each other over this every waking moment. For those that want to throw the free speech argument at me, I say we should just do this out of respect for each other because every damn thread that involves UDI and UDII turns into a fight instead of recommendations. Please Stop the Madness.
I'll clarify my own " " to mean over-compression, yes. When the amount of compression is unnecessary, and the "air" or "breathing room" in the recording has been minimized.
"too bright' and the like are simply preference calls, unless there's a reference for the 'correct' amount of bright. There are ways to measure how one released version differs from another....and it would be good if forum members started providing such hard data, as it could confirm or lay to rest claims that version A is 'sucked out in the midrange' compared to version B, or somesuch. But there's no way at all to tell with that level of certainty, how *any* of the versions differ from the *master tapes* (unless we have access to them). And even then... for the EJ remasters, when Gus Dudgeon went back to the master tapes, he seems to have decided they no longer sounded 'correct' *as is*. If I recall correctly from the ICE interview with him, he said they'd 'gone soft' or something like that.
How do you know that, for some people, that isn't *exactly* what is happening? I would add, though, that as mastered peaks approach 0 dbFS you increase the chance that your player's output stage will start to balk at 'intersample overs'....peaks that actually 'exceeded' 0 dBFS but which weren't caught due to poor digital monitoring during mastering. The could introduce distortion at output, because many players don't want to see these. http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/specsformats/0dbfsdigitalclipping.php I think Rob is wondering how many who claim to hear it, are so 'trained'. Except, digital compression can sound good, especially for rock music. Really. Many great rock recordings of the CD era have used it during mastering. It's only since the 90's that it's been *over* applied to new recordings, and applied inappropriately to *older* recordings...but even there, *someone* must have thought it sounded good! Adjusting for voume difference when one version is louder due to compression/limiting, rather than simple gain, is not straighforward. In fact that's a good way to support a claim that 'loudness; of B versus A is due to different EQ or compression/limiting -- level match them by average or peak level, and if they still sound different, it ain't just a simple level mismatch. For perceptually level-matching two sound files, I use replaygain., which is described here: http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Replaygain
Hi Steve, in the middle approx. 2 min. into Singing Winds/Crying Beasts where the instrumentation is maxed out and becomes slightly muddy sounding, this is inherant on the master tape and how were they able to correct it for the Japanese 1st pressing? I'm really curious regarding this question.
Evan, I was only referring to compression applied after the recording took place and the original stereo mix-down (to create the two track master tape - the one Steve needs for his mastering work) took place. I know that compression is a part of recording, no doubt about that. I am also mainly referring to music recorded in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's (that's mostly what I like). Nowadays, we don't even have to wait for some bad remasters to get compression on CD's, almost every new popular music recording is compressed too much. Whether this compression is already applied during the recording or only at the final mix/mastering/CD mastering step, I don't know. Here's a good example of what I mean: http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=72558&highlight=dire+straits I make my points in post #10 and #12. That's the kind of compression I just can't stand anymore (of course there are much worse examples than this one, but this example is already ruining it for me - it doesn't have to be compressed to the point of that all peaks are shaved off). Roland
No, they do not sound exactly the same because of minor eq. changes decided by different mastering engineers. What I said was that they all were sourced from the same digital master as opposed to the actual analog tapes. The only good mastering I've heard that is truly analog sourced is the Japanese 1st pressing catalog number 38XB-26. I've never seen another copy myself.
The Japanese first pressing?!?! The hiss level on that disc is so high you can barely hear the g**damn music! Easily the worst CD I've ever heard.
You could very well be correct, but keep in mind that there are some very quiet tapes out there. I just did a session where we had a 2" reel of Ampex 499 that was dead quiet, so much so that everyone out on the floor thought we had tracked into Pro Tools. Had I not seen this go down, I would have certainly thought I was listening to a digital recording. Dan
Ah, I see you've heard the midrange hollow Ted. Stand Up is the same way unfortunately IIRC. I say IIRC because it has been 4 years since Gort Gary bought his copy over.
Ted, thanks. I will start working on the list. It might take me a little while, and I will include information on which versions I compared each CD to. Roland
This one I can answer. By asking Steve Hoffman a gazillion questions and listening to his advice and actually following up with his suggestions until I was certain what exactly I was hearing. It took 4 years literally to arrive to where I'm at now. It is a must in digital mastering, but becomes abusive when overly used is all. Hmm, I use my ears. Oh well
I realize we don't see eye to eye on this one Michael, but honestly the excessive hiss doesn't detract from the music for me on my system. BTW, thanks for letting me have your copy.
Dan, trust me on this one as I was there when they made the digital master at Little Mountain Sound in 1984.
Remember the urinal for that place went on ebay for like $2500 or something like that? I was on tour and lost touch with the auction when it hit $850!
