Not convinced sometimes by arguments regarding older CDs

I started noticing it around the time of remasters/reissues with some labels. I suspect it was not only to get noticed on radio BUT to make it "sound" like you were getting something that was much "better".

 

I just pick and choose what I like. I have no preference between new masterings and old.

 

I thing you guyz took Steve's post the wrong way. We wasn't being rude, he was stating it as reasoning.

 

But, even that is subjective. There are times when one could actually prefer a little compression on the master mix.

 

I have proof that it started much earlier.

 

My definition of "reduced dynamic range" is simple--if the difference between the loudest and softest points of an albums has been reduced after mastering, that is a reduction of dynamic range. Whether you find it to be a problem or not is subjective. Whether it exists or not is completely objective, although there may be debates about how we can measure this. To me, the auditory effects (and the resulting headaches and discomfort it gives me) are enough. But I find the graphs (when done correctly) to be helpful in distinguishing differences in dynamic range between releases. That is all they, do, however.

 

I think you missed my point completely. My entire point had to do with the fact that saying "I prefer compressed music" is absolutely not the same as saying "I like crappy music" (unless you don't like compressed music, in which case you would never say it in the first place). A lot of arguments about remasters start when someone points out that a particular remaster is brickwalled, and rather than saying, "Yeah, I guess I like that brickwalled sound," fans of that remaster will say "How dare you!"--AS IF they were being told that they liked crappy music, rather than brickwalled music. The fact is, many people DO like brickwall limiting, or it wouldn't be used. To some, progresssive rock is crappy music, yet I have no problem saying that I like progressive rock, and will defend my preference. Those on this forum who consistently defend compressed remasters, IMO, should simply do the same.

This is a separate issue, IMO. Yes, one could focus on better tapes and ADC in spite of compression. If people were to say, "this remaster has reduced dynamic range, but I don't mind because I can hear the better tape, etc"--fine. But I agree with the position that I think our host has taken: reductions in dynamic range affect the sound far more dramatically than improved ADC and in all but the most egregious differences in tape generation. I have no problem with someone disagreeing with this, as long as they at least acknowledge that dynamic range is important (many defenders of remasters, I've noticed, never mention dynamic range at all).

I can't help but notice that even in your "good" examples, you mention at least "moderate" compression. Why? This seems to acknowledge a reality--aside from Steve and a few other non-mainstream engineers, everyone seems to use at least some compression these days. For someone like me who is very sensitive to compression (perhaps because I listen through headphones), this is a serious problem. I honestly have never heard a remaster other than those by audiophile companies (and perhaps Mark Wilder and Vic Anesini) that beat the non-remastered versions, if for no other reason than they always seem to add at least "moderate" compression.

My impression of this forum is that it exists in large part to resist the trend toward dynamic range reduction in mastering (as well as the other issues you mention like no-noise and extreme EQ). If you like a remaster in spite of these issues, no problem, but you should expect to be challenged if you say a loud remaster is a huge improvement over an original without acknowledging the issue of dynamic range.

 

But how does that make the question of whether there is compression or not a subjective one? Even if you prefer compressed sound, the question of whether the sound has or has not in fact been compressed remains a completely objective one. That is what I meant by the objective/subjective distinction. If an engineer added compression at the mastering stage, calling that master "compressed" is completely oibjective. Whether or not it is a good thing is what is subjective. (I personally have yet to hear an example where compression at the mastering stage improved my listening experience, at least when I'm not in a moving car--that, however, I acknowledge to be subjective).

 

Oh no no no no no no no no!!!!!!!!! A certain forum member once tried to tear me a new one for suggesting this. Now, you too, may come under his wrath!

 

Knowledge of what other sources sound like, and knowing what compression sounds like.

 

No offense, but your headaches and discomfort are way too subjective a gauge for me to make a decision on the extent of reduced dynamics.

Again, I believe it comes down to tolerance. I'm not an engineer, so I can't read the engineer's mind as to why he would decide to master it one way or the other. Perhaps it has something to do with that particular source tape. Or the original production. Regardless, there have been many remasters that have blown away the original CD release IMO...without resorting to massive reduction of dynamics or poor EQ choices. Obviously, YMMV and these may indeed give you a headache. Having said that, bad remasters give me a headache, too, while some original CDs sound as good to me as they probably do to you.

 

There was compression even (especially) back in the days of the lp. There is moderate compression of the dynamic range of recordings in old cds. There is a lot of compression in some contemporary recordings. No need to be dogmatic, and pretend that an old 80s era cd, even if it were a "flat transfer" wasn't at least a little compressed.

Examples I can think of where the 90s era cd reissue was better overall (or at least equal) than earlier cd reissues, and not compressed beyond reason.

90s era Sony jazz reissues of the old columbia catalog. Some are a bit bright, but generally better than the mudbath of the old purple later 80s cds.
1990s Impulse! jazz reissues, remastered by Eric Labson.
Blue Note Connoiseur editions, remastered by Ron McMaster
90s era Rhino of the old Atlantic catalog, remastered by Gene Paul
Late 90s to 2000s era Fantasy/Concord back catalog of old Prestige, Riverside, mostly remastered by Joe Tarantino
90s era JVC XRCDs, among the best sounding cd reissues available.

 

Actually I think I did get your point. You framed it as a preference for a more refined approach as opposed to something a little baser or more common.

 

Actually, now I know for sure that you missed the point, but at least I know why. I didn't intend to "frame" it that way at all. The comments at the start of the post were trying to refute the claims by another poster that "refined=better" and that people only need to be exposed to the latter to prefer it. I do not agree, and in fact find that position to be elitist.

So now that that is cleared up, do you agree with the way I restated my point in the previous post (where there was no hint of any such framing)?

 

If by "moderate compression" you mean only the amount that was used on '80s cds (and it is news to me that they were compressed at the mastering stage), and no more, then I'm with you. But I haven't heard any post 1995 non-audiophile rock remaster that wasn't louder than the earlier version, which normally implies more compression.

I agree with some of your exceptions here, which mainly seem to be jazz releases. Of course, I even had your first example in mind when I mentioned Mark Wilder. It's mainly just RVG who seems to have jumped on the "modern mastering style" bandwagon in jazz.

 

They used B&W speakers to monitor their work at Abbey Road while remastering the Beatles so this may help explain why you prefer the remastered White Album cd to the original.

Me, I prefer the original '87 cd warts and all, but I have different ears and equipment.

 

Test your theory. Go to a CD Warehouse or Disc-Go Round (any old place with used cds), buy the earliest cds you can find of the Genesis catalog (for example, you can use another band) and then buy exactly those same titles as NEW cds . . . play both versions side by side. If you prefer the new ones, then everyone here is delusional and you're correct after all. If you find that (after level matching old and new cds) you prefer the rounder tone to the old discs over the sharper eq of the new discs . . . you'll have a new hobby: hunting down vintage cds, like some of us do. Have you ever done old and new cd comparisons, same titles but two pressings, and volume level matched?

 

moderate compression (during mastering) = the mastering engineered screwed up the recording less than others

 

I agree!

 

This is analog compression. It is completely different being done in the recording chain than the sonic damaging digital mastering added compression mentioned.