Not convinced sometimes by arguments regarding older CDs

Well put my friend!

 

The reason I stick around despite being told the same thing(which is quite a rude thing to say to anyone).

Evan

 

True, but our host is telling us to leave if we don't share his preferences:
http://stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=6007812&postcount=46

 

Old CDs work best if they were correctly mastered in the first place, and many of them were. New remasters work best if they're taken from the original master tapes (which may not have been available for the early releases) and if they're properly mastered without excessive compression or limiting or bizarre EQ choices.

Most new releases and remastered CDs that are mastered for the mainstream consumer market are not up to audiophile standards and sound awful when played on good-quality playback equipment. For mastering engineers to do their job correclty, they must know what type of equipment the consumer is going to use for playback and then present the music accordingly. Do most mass-market consumers play their CDs on high-quality systems? Nope! And that's why most new releases and remastered CDs sound the way they do, they're mastered that way to sound good on substandard playback systems.

 

Yes, I thought Steve's comment was rude. The forum is better with a variety of opinions.

 

You like what you like no apologies are necessary and just because somebody else doesn't like what you like doesn't really matter. Even if it is a professional saying that we should like something that doesn't mean it appeals to you.

 

Actually, I didn't interpret his comment that way at all. He wasn't suggesting you leave if you don't share his preferences. He was suggesting you leave if the fact that others share and express a certain philosophy bothers you so much that you feel the need to complain. Why complain about a mastering philosophy when it is the whole point of the forum? In that way, I don't think Steve's comment is particularly rude. The complaints, on the other hand...

P.S. I don't think the original post was rude either--he was asking a question, and was presumably interested in a variety of responses, including those that disagreed with his premise. Some of the responses, though, took on that complaining tone.

 

I didn't see the post where he tells everyone. Post # please.

 

Wow. I don't think I could disagree anymore with you! Ever needledropped a record? All the same frequencies are there that are on a CD. The CD might have extended range, but mastering engineers don't often use it. Also, it's crazy to say that we want things to sound as close to a master tape as possible. I've heard master tapes that sound TERRIBLE!!! Do I want to hear it like that? NO! I want it to sound as GOOD as possible. How many master tapes have you heard, and how do you know if a remastered CD sounds like the master tape?

Frank R.

 

Well said, and I agree with yours and many other comments previously posted. As I do with our host's mastering philosophy. However, the problems on this forum arise in the subjectivity of words like "excessive" and "bizarre" as they pertain to specific mastering issues. Then the graphs and DR meters get rolled out, as if some of those questionable applications are the be-all and end-all of any discussion of a particular mastering.

All in all, I think Raunchroll echoes my feelings: "When I consider my own CD collection its a mix of 'original' & remastered CD's. I go by what I prefer listening to."

 

Something was tickling my brain and I realized it was Deja vu:
[URL="http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=162819"[/URL]

Pardon if the link is goofed, but I'm using my phone.

Edit: dang it the link is indeed goofed, but I don't think I cam fix it from my phone. Do a search for a Van Morrison thread Bkarloff started 2 years ago. . .

______________________________________________________________________________

Here it is.

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=162819

 

Fair enough and yes that '87 AR is a stinker compared to the '83.

 

Plain as day from where I sit Mark.

 

Try the Japan for USA Warner Bros. pressing. This was the only version that finally made me stop looking for BIA when I found it.

 

As a long-time non-consumer of Japan vinyl, I never really thought it was the tapes that were the problem. It's more the case that the Japan approach to mastering really doesn't work with records. There's not enough 'there' there. If you compare (extreme) a Japan LZ2 with a US RL you'll understand what was done to make a good record great.

All that stuff is on the tape, but if it's massaged right it turns into something special.

On CD, the headroom and range is so much better that in general the 'leave it alone' approach works in most cases and early (or minimalist, which is how I would characterize many AF and DCC issues) bear this out.

I think the modern engineers are sometimes too reliant on their tweaks. The same was true back in the vinyl days (there are cases where Porky made several attempts at cutting an album, two out of three ended up painfully distorted compared to the other. Yet it's all part of his 'sound'.)

 

#46

 

This is my perception as well.

 

I don't think the cat's out of the bag now, is it? Not everyone who visits this site is totally unfamiliar with how the mastering process works.

 

Fixed now.

 

Compromised may not be the right word. 'Made to work' might be closer.

I was listening to the recent MOFI Santana Abraxas CD recently, and it's quite a different experience to my original vinyl, which I'm used to. Some gains some losses.

 

I completely get why Steve and other members prefer the '87 White Album CD - it does more closely preserve the volume differences between individual songs than the 2009 stereo remaster does. And the 2009 stereo White Album is, to my ears, the most "goosed" of the 2009 Beatles remasters. However, for casual listening, I'll still go with the 2009 remaster, because the '87 CD does sound dull and flat next to my Apple stereo White Album LP.

However, aside from the White Album, I find the 2009 stereo and mono Beatles remasters to be a massive improvement over the '87 CDs.

 

correct

 

I understand what you are saying but you are being way too general. There are many remasters that get thumbs up here.

Your equipment and to me..listening levels have a lot to do with whether you like remasters that others here won't like.

My listening preferences have changed since I joined the forum. I previously thought all of the original issues of CDs sounded muddy or not as detailed as the remasters. However, over time, I started to realize that any remaster that sucks the dynamics out of the original is a bad thing at louder listening levels. It all depends on how bad the remaster is.

Give it time...in a few months you will be noticing differences between the original issues and remasters. This forum helps educate your ear to hear things you used to take for granted.

 

Some remasters (a lot, actually) have been mangled, but that shouldn't damn the whole class. I must say, though, that it was this forum that got me to start closely comparing remasters to old releases, and I was not fully pleased with what I heard.

Sometimes I hear that the remaster is improved in some respects (more natural instrumental timbre, more fine detail) and worse in other respects (too much compression, too much bass boost, whatever). So it isn't always a cut-and-dried thing, though usually people align themselves solidly on one side or the other and won't admit the merits of another person's choice. This annoys me a little bit. Of course, it annoys me even more when the remaster engineers clearly were using more transparent and musical equipment, and then they suck the life out of it with limiting.

But I also feel reverence for the original CD masters is generally overdone on this forum, and in some cases it is hard for me to understand the preference.

 

Total generalization on your part and untrue to boot. Some of Steve's work gets the treatment here as well as does Barry Diament's. Luckily they are both host and member respectively. They give us good reasons why we may not dig what we hear on their work and they respect our opinions.