Can anyone comment on the harsh highs on this XTC recording from 1988?

[Blake Klondike]

I signed up for Pandora and one of the things they have correctly identified about me is that i like XTC. This is a brilliant song, wonderful musical performance, etc., but when i heard it immediately after "Sundown" by Gordon Lightfoot, i was shocked at how bright it was. The highs are so bright that they are borderline unpleasant to listen to. Is anyone in the know re: why this started happening in the 80s? They next played a Cocteau Twins song that had the same problem. Thanks!

 

[MaxwellsEq]

It's a bright recording, but not overly harsh. The band leader didn't admire the way one of the previous albums (Skylarking) sounded and seems to have reacted the other way. In my experience, it's quite an accurate sound from a studio. If you are in the studio when a band is recording, it is very bright

 

[TheZebraKilledDarwin]

I signed up for Pandora and one of the things they have correctly identified about me is that i like XTC. This is a brilliant song, wonderful musical performance, etc., but when i heard it immediately after "Sundown" by Gordon Lightfoot, i was shocked at how bright it was. The highs are so bright that they are borderline unpleasant to listen to. Is anyone in the know re: why this started happening in the 80s? They next played a Cocteau Twins song that had the same problem. Thanks!

Have you compared the remastered version to the original version?
When remasters became popular, due to digital technology, consumers were just keen on experiencing brightness without noise.
I am old enough to remember consumer tapes. The problem always had been not enough treble. Recording with Dolby C and playing back without it, gave much nicer treble, sadly without bass.

 

[Chr1]

To me it appears that with some bands and/or recording studios there seems to have been a shift to a brighter sound in the mid to late 80s. I wonder if it might have something to do with the phasing out of valve equipment, and/or possibly the limitations of early digital recording technology.

Just for example, I am a fan of early ZZ Top from the 79s, but I find the albums from the mid to late 80s overly bright and harsh. To me they are hard to listen to.
I wonder if this might also be why lots of people love the sound of the recordings of Ella Fitzgerald, Frank Sinatra etc. They were mostly recorded on 2" tape, in good studios with quality valve equipment.

My understanding is that early digital audio used in studios was very different from that today.

 

[Beave]

I used to have the original CD release and the 2001 remaster. They sound quite a bit different due to different EQing in the remaster. The original has more midrange while the remaster emphasizes the bass and treble more. I don't find the highs harsh on the remaster, but they're definitely on the "hot" side (ie, prominent).

 

[Blake Klondike]

I used to have the original CD release and the 2001 remaster. They sound quite a bit different due to different EQing in the remaster. The original has more midrange while the remaster emphasizes the bass and treble more. I don't find the highs harsh on the remaster, but they're definitely on the "hot" side (ie, prominent).

this is another one I particularly noticed. This one was so bright that it was unpleasant to listen to, a phenomenon I don't remember happening when I was listening to the tape when it came out. It is definitely there on every system with all types of headphones/speakers. I don't have a tube set to play it through but i bet that would mellow it out some.

 

[Blake Klondike]

To me it appears that with some bands and/or recording studios there seems to have been a shift to a brighter sound in the mid to late 80s. I wonder if it might have something to do with the phasing out of valve equipment, and/or possibly the limitations of early digital recording technology.

Just for example, I am a fan of early ZZ Top from the 79s, but I find the albums from the mid to late 80s overly bright and harsh. To me they are hard to listen to.
I wonder if this might also be why lots of people love the sound of the recordings of Ella Fitzgerald, Frank Sinatra etc. They were mostly recorded on 2" tape, in good studios with quality valve equipment.
rely
My understanding is that early digital audio used in studios was very different from that today.

Thanks for this. A great example to me is the difference between early 70s Ry Cooder and late-70s like Bop Til You Drop, which I have read was the first major label record to be recorded entirely to digital. Is it possible that the frequency response from those early recordings was that compromised? I know there are people here who would know!

It could have just been the 80s ears of all the producers and engineers too. I just read in Scott Ian's book that when they were recording State Of Euphoria with Eddie Kramer, and his first mix was slathered in Def Leppard digital reverb. So not even a guy with his 60s-70s ears was immune to that stuff.

 

[El_Duderino]

Maybe there are technical reasons behind this.

Pre-emphasis was a thing in the 80s:

Stereo Lab - CD de-emphasis

Stereo Lab FRANCINSTIEN Stereo Lab FRANCINSTIEN T-Sym NEEDLE=DROP NEEDLE DROP software equalisation recording charateristics quadraphonic quadraphonics ambisonic ambisonics SQ QS quadraphonics quad binaural stereo Blumlein cassette noise reduction in software Dolby B Dolby Surround decoding...

pspatialaudio.com

Here is a list with pre-emphasized albums:

Pre-emphasis (release list) - cdHistory

www.studio-nibble.com

Edit: Yepp. Your album is on the list

 

[Blake Klondike]

Maybe there are technical reasons behind this.

Pre-emphasis was a thing in the 80s:

Stereo Lab - CD de-emphasis

Stereo Lab FRANCINSTIEN Stereo Lab FRANCINSTIEN T-Sym NEEDLE=DROP NEEDLE DROP software equalisation recording charateristics quadraphonic quadraphonics ambisonic ambisonics SQ QS quadraphonics quad binaural stereo Blumlein cassette noise reduction in software Dolby B Dolby Surround decoding...

pspatialaudio.com

Here is a list with pre-emphasized albums:

Pre-emphasis (release list) - cdHistory

www.studio-nibble.com

Edit: Yepp. Your album is on the list

Thank you-- it is shocking that I could have been in this hobby for forty years and still never have heard of this. So this means that the rips that the streaming services are using are from this first pressing? That's quite an oversight. It also makes me ever more skeptical of the claim that CDs sound better than anything else. The actual truth seems to be most CDs under most conditions.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Thank you-- it is shocking that I could have been in this hobby for forty years and still never have heard of this. So this means that the rips that the streaming services are using are from this first pressing? That's quite an oversight. It also makes me ever more skeptical of the claim that CDs sound better than anything else. The actual truth seems to be most CDs under most conditions.

The designers of the CD system could NOT have foreseen ripping or streaming. If you bought a CD in 1987 with preemphasis properly flagged on it and you played it on a standard 1986 CD player, the player would have automatically correctly applied the necessary deemphasis properly applied and so it would have sounded correct!

 

[Chr1]

So do the streaming services stream these tracks correctly, as intended, with de-emphasis or not?

I don't use streaming services but have plenty of CD rips that sound harsh. I always assumed they were just badly recorded/mastered.

 

[DSJR]

Could it also be speakers used. I love the 80s work of the Cocteau Twins (going back a few posts) and never found the recordings particularly bright. Over the years, I rather liked the fresh 'open' kind of productions from UK output of this era...

 

[tmtomh]

Personally I think Oranges and Lemons is just a bad-sounding album.

 

[El_Duderino]

Thank you-- it is shocking that I could have been in this hobby for forty years and still never have heard of this. So this means that the rips that the streaming services are using are from this first pressing? That's quite an oversight. It also makes me ever more skeptical of the claim that CDs sound better than anything else. The actual truth seems to be most CDs under most conditions.

You're welcome. Unfortunately no one can tell for sure, which version the big streaming services use for their content. (at least that's my experience). There are some streaming services though, that are aimed at audiophiles and can be an exception in this regard. But they are more expensive. These are btw some of the reasons, I only buy cds.

A big problem is also the fact, that through the services you mainly get the latest version of an album, which in many cases is "brickwalled" (dynamic range is reduced).

Cds can be a wonderful format, if you follow some rules: Check which version you want to buy first. A good starting point is this page: http://dr.loudness-war.info/. On this page you can check for the dynamic range of an album. Imho everything above DR 10 is a good rating. Then you can search in internet forums for other users´ experience. In many cases it's better to buy the older versions of an album on cd, which you can find often used for a few bucks (that's my strategy btw)

And btw: you can also check in the specs of a cd-player if it uses de-emphasis. There are a lot of newer ones that have this feature.

 

[DVDdoug]

This is what tone controls/EQ are for! ...One of the things.

If it's pre-emphasis, all CD players will detect it and apply the proper de-emphasis. It's part of the CD standard.

But as has been said, that doesn't usually happen with ripping so the rip can be fouled-up. I don't think the streaming services normally use "ripped" files but if the "record company" accidently submits a digital master with pre-emphasis to the streaming service, that could be a problem. And with decades-old recordings there can be foul-ups.

In the analog days, most records were a little bit dull sounding (rolled-off highs) with some exceptions. But it was just the records. The studio tape was obviously a lot better because the CDs sound better (even the early CDs with little or no re-mastering).

 

[Chr1]

Wow. This is huge for me.

Does anyone know if it is possible to find out via software, if an audio file from a ripped CD has had the proper de-emphasis applied?

It could explain a lot of "harsh" sounding recordings.

I have a vast selection of CD rips, from an assortment of sources, and have no idea!

 

[El_Duderino]

Wow. This is huge for me.

Does anyone know if it is possible to find out via software, if an audio file from a ripped CD has had the proper de-emphasis applied?

It could explain a lot of "harsh" sounding recordings.

I have a vast selection of CD rips, from an assortment of sources, and have no idea!

Try EAC. I think it has that feature.

It's freeware btw:

Home - Exact Audio Copy

Edit: In hindsight, I am not so sure about this, because there are many postings in forums, stating that later versions canned that feature.

 

[Snarfie]

This is what tone controls/EQ are for! ...One of the things.

If it's pre-emphasis, all CD players will detect it and apply the proper de-emphasis. It's part of the CD standard.

But as has been said, that doesn't usually happen with ripping so the rip can be fouled-up. I don't think the streaming services normally use "ripped" files but if the "record company" accidently submits a digital master with pre-emphasis to the streaming service, that could be a problem. And with decades-old recordings there can be foul-ups.

In the analog days, most records were a little bit dull sounding (rolled-off highs) with some exceptions. But it was just the records. The studio tape was obviously a lot better because the CDs sound better (even the early CDs with little or no re-mastering).

Thougt EAC rip software is taking care of pre-emphasis correction.

 

[Soniclife]

Is it possible to use DSP to do deemphasis?

 

[kchap]

Is it possible to use DSP to do deemphasis?

Yes. For example, SoX can apply deemphasis.