• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Loudness compression, loudness wars.. What exactly it is and why is it happening?

MRC01

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,425
Likes
4,030
Location
Pacific Northwest
I don't disagree but there is the old adage, garbage in, garbage out. Sometimes there's only so much you can do with a recording. How much could he have dialed back the treble before all life disappeared from the recording? We have no idea how the channels were laid out and what else was mixed in with the vocal track he had that would have been affected by a heavy hand on that tracks EQ? I highly respect Steven's ear and mixing talent and will give him the benefit of doubt that he did the best he could with what he had to work with.
YMMV ;)
True, though it is a remix, not just a remaster, which gives him control over the individual tracks and their levels relative to each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EJ3

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,349
Likes
3,462
Location
San Diego
Can the people who don't like the Steven Wilson remixes of the Yes albums please recommend the best remasters to listen to instead? Thank you!
Not a remaster recommendation but if you are a fan of this album check out an original pressing of the LP which I prefer over any CD version I have tried. Steven Wilson's remix has the best "sound quality" of any version I have heard but it is different than the original. The original LP or Steve Wilson are the 2 version I listen to.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,169
Likes
3,717
Relayer was one of, if not the, weakest of the Yes albums being done after Wakemans exit from the band. About the only thing that made it really interesting to listen to was Steven's 2014 5.1 mix.

Relayer is perhaps their best album. (And it's the only album they did in the 70s that Wakeman wasn't on)
 

Sal1950

Grand Contributor
The Chicago Crusher
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
14,073
Likes
16,609
Location
Central Fl
Not a remaster recommendation but if you are a fan of this album check out an original pressing of the LP which I prefer over any CD version I have tried.
Is it the Snap, Crackle, or Pop that make the LP's sound attractive? :p
 

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,946
Likes
2,611
Location
Massachusetts
Is it the Snap, Crackle, or Pop that make the LP's sound attractive? :p

It's also fun to watch you sub try to reproduce the rumble or the overly heavy footsteps.

- Rich
 

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,349
Likes
3,462
Location
San Diego
Is it the Snap, Crackle, or Pop that make the LP's sound attractive? :p
Sounds "attractive" because master tapes were fresh and it was mastered with input from band and it is "original".... as an LP it is not perfect but it does sound better than the CD's I have (which came out decades later )
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,213
Likes
7,593
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
Is it the Snap, Crackle, or Pop that make the LP's sound attractive? :p
It's the low-level noises off that fool the ear into thinking there's more stereo going on than was recorded at the session. Also, acoustic feedback. But it's the IGD that ultimately make them sound like shit.
 

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,349
Likes
3,462
Location
San Diego
It's also fun to watch you sub try to reproduce the rumble or the overly heavy footsteps.

- Rich
DSP rumble filter and slab floor so that is not an issue for me ..... I am not a vinyl fanatic or apologist and prefer digital but for more than a few classic rock titles the original LP's sound good and their mastering's are different than the current digital versions.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,169
Likes
3,717
Can the people who don't like the Steven Wilson remixes of the Yes albums please recommend the best remasters to listen to instead? Thank you!

Since you asked... ;)

For the first two albums, the standard Atlantic CDs, remastered in the 1990s are just fine. Most Yes Album CDs are also fine. Mobile Fidelity's* is my usual playback, but I enjoy Steve Wilson's 5.1 remix of this one a lot. There are numerous masterings of Fragile to choose from, again most are good except for the very first CD issue, a dull mastering by the highly overrated Barry Diament. My personal go-to is Joe Gastwirt's remaster circa 1994...the first re-mastering on CD. Wilson's 5.1 remix of this is good too -- though on a track by track basis, the earlier DVDA 5.1 can be as good or better. Similarly for Close to the Edge, the 1990s remaster, the early 2000s Rhino remaster, or the CD layer of Audio Fidelity SACD/CD** are fine. Wilson's 5.1 mix of this ranges from simply weirdly unbalanced (title track) to inert (the other two tracks). For Tales from Topographic Oceans, I much prefer the Japanese HDCD*** (decoded) from 1998 over nearly all others. It's gorgeous (and so is the replica paper sleeve). The Rhino remaster from 2003 is also good and was the first to offer the cool 'work in progress versions' of two sides as a bonus. Wilson's 5.1 mix does not satisfy this listener's picky ears, too many impactful moments that came from Eddy Offord's careful riding of levels, lose their impact here. My go to for Relayer is again the 1998 Japanese HDCD (decoded). Both of these HDCDs are tweaked, EQ wise, but simply sound better than any of the many other masterings I've heard. (Especially avoid the George Marino/Rhino remaster of Relayer ). Wilson's 5.1 mix of this is just a series of disappointments and squandered opportunities, with remarkably dull EQ. Sound wise, Going for the One is a shrill, reverb-drenched pig's ear that no amount of remastering can fix, but the Audio Fidelity SACD/CD is as good as I've heard. Tormato is a mess in all respects, but the HDtracks**** version is a real find. In addition to having 'good' sound quality, as far as it goes for this album, it also features a heretofore unheard count-in to the first track...an indicator this was sourced at or near the original masters. The HDtracks Drama is also my new go-to...a pleasant surprise.

For 'Yesterdays' , the original albums the tracks were taken from sound better, and for the epic 'America', seek out the original LP mastering from 'New Age Of Atlantic', which unfortunately has never been officially released in digital form. The version released later on Yesterdays added gobs of reverb to that mix. Both 5.1 remixes of 'America' are abominable...and there is no 2.0 remix I'm aware of.

For the live Yessongs , another problematic recording, the HDtracks is good; the HDCD (decoded) is rather over-EQd in an attempt to get more bass and presence out of it but it offers an interesting alternative. (The giant Progeny' CD set, offering most of the complete concerts from which Yessongs was drawn, mixed in 2.0 from multitracks on modern equipment , should have been an improvement. But while the performances are of course awesome, it's a surprisingly dull-sounding affair compared to Yessongs, which for all its sonic flaws always sounds *exciting* and *live*. Offord, for example, wasn't afraid to pan a soloist to the center, or zoom a synthesizer run from left to right and back again. Or to run a tape 'hot'. Brian Kehew, who mixed Progeny, seems rigidly stuck on the idea of a 'band on the stage' presentation, Howe to the left, Wakeman to the right...and his efforts to resurrect Squire's bass have mostly failed. The dynamics overall are...polite.)

For the live Yesshows you're forever stuck with Chris Squire's dry, amusingly bass- and drum-heavy mix (the band was appalled). My go-to is the 1990s remaster, having only ever heard the LP and the older Japanese CD version. The remaster at least glues the two parts of 'Ritual' back together. I don't play this album much, as better (unofficial) live documents of 70s Yes exist elsewhere.



* A controversial reissue, as it is certainly louder than many other masterings, but MoFi claims this is from using, for the first time, correct Dolby decoding settings for the master tapes. It sounds fantastic in any case.


**None of the three AF SACDs I own of 70s Yes -- Fragile, Close to the Edge, Going for the One -- is bad, but curiously on at least one, (GftO) the *SACD* layer is more compressed while the CD layer is full range. As if someone at AF didn't know quite what they were doing.

***Avoid all the other HDCD Yes studio albums. They're very bad. The two HDCDs I like here have to be decoded to restore full dynamic range.

****HDtracks sourcing does not always mean 'high resolution', given that some of its masterings are compressed in dynamic range compared to other masterings. Sometimes you have to purchase the 'higher resolution' version to get the uncompressed one (see: Van Halen remasters on HDtracks, where only the 192/24 offering is uncompressed. ) So, caveat emptor. FWIW my HDTracks Drama and Tormato are 96/24 , and are not compressed. HDtracks also offers them in 192/24.






Not a remaster recommendation but if you are a fan of this album check out an original pressing of the LP which I prefer over any CD version I have tried. Steven Wilson's remix has the best "sound quality" of any version I have heard but it is different than the original. The original LP or Steve Wilson are the 2 version I listen to.

I've owned the LPs since they were first released; and the the Wilson remixes usually contain a digital transfer of a UK LP first pressing. Having heard all these, I can't agree. LPs aren't magic and they have limitations that CD doesn't. That said, the best LP version of any Yes album I've owned was a circa 1984 Japanese import of Tales, which sounded stunning. The HDCD reminds me of it, enough that I've wondered if the HDCD was actually sourced from the Japanese LP mastering.

Anyway, this is all quite OT for this thread. I'm fine with shutting down this Yes nerd sub-conversation.
 
Last edited:

RichB

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 24, 2019
Messages
1,946
Likes
2,611
Location
Massachusetts
DSP rumble filter and slab floor so that is not an issue for me ..... I am not a vinyl fanatic or apologist and prefer digital but for more than a few classic rock titles the original LP's sound good and their mastering's are different than the current digital versions.

IMO, LPs resurgence is a testimony to the malpractice taking place in digital mastering.

- Rich
 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,857
I don't have it handy, so can't check. How did ELP's Trilogy remaster by MFSL in the 90's compare to the originals? I've had that CD since it was issued, but not the original LP to compare it to. I always thought it sounded excellent, but that may be a musical judgment as much as an audio technology judgment. I do have Brain Salad Surgery on vinyl, and don't really think it's brittle in the highs.

I have all the early Yes albums on vinyl--The Yes Album, Fragile, Close to the Edge, Relayer, and Going for the One. Those are definitely brighter than my more modern recordings, but knowing how demanding (even if untechnical) was Jon Anderson in terms of the sound of the group and the sound of the mix, I always thought that was their signature sound. I love the clarity of it--it's recorded fairly dry and dynamic, instead of processed with a lot of reverb (and possibly) compression like what I hear in more modern recordings.

(I have three pressings of The Yes Album, including one from Brazil that has severe sibilance on vocals. The other two are U.S. pressings and sound good.)

I feel the same about Rick Wakeman's recordings from that era. The LP for Rick Wakeman's Criminal Record from 1978 is clear and precise (i.e., not a lot of smear or reverb), while the early Japanese remaster onto CD seems a bit more compressed. It has a quieter background, but it's denser in the lower-mids and upper bass in ways that undermine that clarity.

I have the four-LP set of Philip Glass's Einstein on the Beach, and those LPs have always had real dynamics and punch. The first CD was dull and compressed by comparison, for reasons I cannot fathom. A cassette I made for a friend from the original LP had more life to it than the CD he possessed. Perhaps that was a level thing, but I really think it was a matter of dynamics, with the CD being somewhat more compressed. I believe that recording was made on magnetic tape originally.

Rick "But too many variables to compare an LP with a CD without four levels of controls for intervening equipment" Denney
 

MRC01

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,425
Likes
4,030
Location
Pacific Northwest
... Sound wise, Going for the One is a shrill, reverb-drenched pig's ear that no amount of remastering can fix, ...
I have the HDTracks version and completely agree. I wish Steven Wilson, or at least *somebody* would tackle that one.
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,169
Likes
3,717
I feel the same about Rick Wakeman's recordings from that era. The LP for Rick Wakeman's Criminal Record from 1978 is clear and precise (i.e., not a lot of smear or reverb), while the early Japanese remaster onto CD seems a bit more compressed. It has a quieter background, but it's denser in the lower-mids and upper bass in ways that undermine that clarity.


The old Japanese CD -- first issue on CD -- is not compressed at all. (Also, CR was released in 1977. And there are many applications of reverb on that album.)
 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,857
That first Japanese CD is the one I have, but the mix is definitely different. It's a bit hotter on my system--the output of my CD player hits the preamp a bit harder than the output of the preamp's phono stage. That should make it seem to have more clarity (the usual perceptual mistake), but in this case, it sounds thicker and less clear in spectrum below a bout 500 Hz. I'd rather they had left the mix alone. When I get back to town, I'll record samples, but level matching ain't easy when comparing sources like it is when comparing DACs.

And, yes, there is reverb on the original recording, but not like on current recordings.

I have two cartridges for my Thorens: An AT-440mla and a Grado Green2+. For a lot of those 70's pop recordings, I prefer the Grado, which is a bit less bright than the Audio-Technica. But the AT is quite good for classical stuff.

On the other hand, if it's material above about 11 KHz that makes it shrill, I probably won't hear it anyway.

Mix is, to me, a coarse effect, it seems to me. Differences in cartridges is more of a fine effect.

Rick "whose hearing is 'warm'" Denney
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,169
Likes
3,717
The *mix* is not different, I assure you. The mix is the same.

The CD probably has more bass because bass on LPs is typically rolled off and summed to mono. LP and CD masterings virtually always are different, unless the CD has been sourced from an EQd-for-LP production master tape, or from a digitized LP itself. And even then, playing the LP won't sound exactly like the CD, or even the same on different turntables. Because of things like your cartridge differences.

Abundant reverb on mid-1970s rock recordings was very common, in that early 'arena rock sound' era (e.g. Yes's Going for the One, any album by Boston). I have not noticed it being worse or better on modern recordings (and of course there are lots of different recordings nowadays, as always). Wakeman's most recent release Red Planet has plenty of it.
 
Last edited:

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,349
Likes
3,462
Location
San Diego
I like to look at different mastering's both "objectively" and "subjectively" When I compare subjectively I always use Foobar's ABX tool which level matches everything.... a lot of time "big differences" disappear when level matched. I also like to look at different mastering's in Adobe Audition's "Frequency Analysis" tool as I think FR differences (EQ) are the main differences you hear between mastering's. Below is a frequency analysis of "The Clap" from a First US pressing LP and an early Atlantic CD. In this case it looks like the LP cutting tape was used for the CD and is typical on a lot of CD mastering's some bass and treble boost was applied. It also looks like the tape suffered some degradation as at very high frequency it is rolled off. Listening to these I can reliably ABX them as the bass and treble boost are low Q. Which is preferred of course is personal but since I grew up with the "original" version I notice I tend to prefer those.


The Clap the Yes Album.jpg
 

rdenney

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 30, 2020
Messages
2,235
Likes
3,857
The *mix* is not different, I assure you. The mix is the same.

The CD probably has more bass because bass on LPs is typically rolled off and summed to mono. LP and CD masterings virtually always are different, unless the CD has been sourced from an EQd-for-LP production master tape, or from a digitized LP itself. And even then, playing the LP won't sound exactly like the CD, or even the same on different turntables. Because of things like your cartridge differences.

Abundant reverb on mid-1970s recordings was very common, in that early 'arena rock sound' era (e.g. Yes's Going for the One, any album by Boston). I have not noticed it being worse or better on modern recordings (and of course there are lots of different recordings nowadays, as always). Wakeman's most recent release Red Planet has plenty of it.

I certainly didn't expect them to sound the same.

Another example: The early CD version of Wakeman's Six Wives... versus the LP recording, both of which I have. In that comparison, the dynamics are very similar, with the CD being a bit more dynamic (so it seems to me), and, of course. with a quieter background. They are obviously the same, with those subtle differences easily understood even on casual listening. But I don't at all hear the muddiness in the mid-bass that I hear in that Japanese CD of CR.

I listen to the opening piano notes of Awaken and compare them with any of the live recordings (which really did have that arena sound--ha!) and the effect of the room is vastly less for the original LP. That's not to say that there was no reverb in the original, but if they really wanted an arena sound, they didn't go far enough. And thank goodness!

Yes, Red Planet is less dynamic and more processed than Wakeman's 70's recordings. I love that album, and think it one of Wakeman's best, but do note those issues. Wakeman was never an "audiophile", of course.

Rick "in another city and can't measure anything" Denney
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,169
Likes
3,717
Levimax, where are you seeing bass boost on CD vs LP on that graph of 'Clap' (not 'The Clap')? I can make out just a small boost in the CD at around 200Hz, while the LP is bassier at 100 Hz. Ditto treble. No doubt they would pop out more if it was a difference graph but i think the 'big ' difference in the midrange (where LP levels are notably higher between 1kHz and 2 k, actually starting all the down at 300Hz) would be far more noticeable.

I also wonder how LP measurements factor out the contribution of the cart/TT. CD players have no analogous contribution to make (and are entirely moot if the data are from a rip)
 

krabapple

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Messages
3,169
Likes
3,717
I certainly didn't expect them to sound the same.

Another example: The early CD version of Wakeman's Six Wives... versus the LP recording, both of which I have. In that comparison, the dynamics are very similar, with the CD being a bit more dynamic (so it seems to me), and, of course. with a quieter background. They are obviously the same, with those subtle differences easily understood even on casual listening. But I don't at all hear the muddiness in the mid-bass that I hear in that Japanese CD of CR.


The early, pre loudness wars CD is 99% certainly more measurably dynamic than any LP version, simply by virtue of higher noise on the LPs. Noise limits dynamic range at the 'soft' end. Whether that matters to the perception, is another story.

Really, you are simply pointing out mastering choices, including choices of source tape, and then folding in LP effects. And relying on purely subjective impressions and memory.


I listen to the opening piano notes of Awaken and compare them with any of the live recordings (which really did have that arena sound--ha!) and the effect of the room is vastly less for the original LP. That's not to say that there was no reverb in the original, but if they really wanted an arena sound, they didn't go far enough. And thank goodness!

You chose a comparatively 'dry' part of the album there (and it's still got a lot of 'verb). Plus you are taking 'arena sound' too literally. No one wanted their records to sound like a bootleg; and a live recording taken off the soundboard or mixed from multis could well have *less* reverb -- it''s got whatever verb the engineer decided to mix in from ambient mics . Going for the One is unmistakably of its time, mid-70s reverb-drenched.
 
Top Bottom