• 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!

Review of the Dire Straits album Money For Nothing with comparison between CD, Cd remastered in 1996, streaming and vinyl of the new 2022 remastering

Putter

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Sep 23, 2019
Messages
493
Likes
771
Location
Albany, NY USA
Please don’t be disingenuous. Read my posts in this thread, including links to my posts in other threads, which take the reader directly to extended to-and-fro between me and you where I expanded in great detail to you the many reasons why it’s a broken tool when used for this particular purpose, including links to evidence provided by others.

So don’t come and tell me that you are not sure why.
I DO find it to be a useful tool because it relates to what happens when I listen to 'remastered' music which has been dynamically compressed compared to the original master. It's too loud so I turn it down, but then it's not loud enough and that does seem to correspond to their numbers. While it's no doubt flawed perhaps even fatally flawed you haven't given an alternative.
 

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,349
Likes
3,462
Location
San Diego
Something just came to mind, when were general pop recordings out with the most DR or Lufs or whatever measure you prefer? I'd say it was late 1950's to late 1970's. Though I have not done any survey to see if that turns out to be so.
From what I have seen the most dynamic popular music was recorded from the late 1970's through the early 1990's. Pink Floyd and Dire Straits are notable are examples from the 1970's but there were many others. Even early "grunge" music was digitally recorded and very dynamic such as early Nirvana, Meat Puppets, and others. I would argue the "peak" of dynamic recording was during the late 1980's and early 1990's when engineers were really getting to understand digital recording. Tracy Chapman's 1988 debut is a good example. Some of the best popular dynamic recordings in my opinion are Lyle Lovetts first 4 albums (late 1980's through early 1990's) ... these really showed what the potential of digital recording could be. From the early 1990's on things changed quickly and dynamic popular recordings got louder and louder until today when everything is loud whether new or remastered. See below, I sometimes pick up the "Grammy compilation CD's" at thrifts. By 1997 the Grammy pop recordings were compressed compared to earlier but not too bad but by 2019 anything popular pretty much had to follow the "super loud" style. Things have not changed much since.

foobar2000 1.4.4 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2020-06-27 20:40:02

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Alanis Morissette / 1997 Grammy Nominees (1)
Celine Dion / 1997 Grammy Nominees (2)
Eric Clapton / 1997 Grammy Nominees (3)
Garbage / 1997 Grammy Nominees (4)
Gloria Estefan / 1997 Grammy Nominees (5)
Jewel / 1997 Grammy Nominees (6)
LeAnn Rimes / 1997 Grammy Nominees (7)
No Doubt / 1997 Grammy Nominees (8)
Shawn Colvin / 1997 Grammy Nominees (9)
Smashing Pumpkins / 1997 Grammy Nominees (10)
Toni Braxton / 1997 Grammy Nominees (11)
Tony Rich Project, The / 1997 Grammy Nominees (12)
Tracy Chapman / 1997 Grammy Nominees (13)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR10 -0.09 dB -13.18 dB 3:50 04-Ironic
DR8 -0.80 dB -11.26 dB 4:35 03-Because You Loved Me
DR10 0.00 dB -11.32 dB 3:56 02-Change The World
DR7 -1.00 dB -9.57 dB 4:21 06-Stupid Girl
DR6 -1.24 dB -9.14 dB 3:49 13-Reach
DR10 0.00 dB -12.20 dB 4:02 07-Who Will Save Your Soul
DR11 0.00 dB -12.28 dB 2:52 10-My Baby
DR8 0.00 dB -9.12 dB 4:29 08-Spiderwebs
DR4 -1.69 dB -7.31 dB 4:17 12-Get Out Of This House
DR9 -1.50 dB -12.29 dB 4:26 05-1979
DR9 -1.50 dB -12.81 dB 4:32 11-Un-Break My Heart
DR9 -1.20 dB -11.76 dB 5:10 09-Nobody Knows
DR10 0.00 dB -11.57 dB 4:30 01-Give Me One Reason
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks: 13
Official DR value: DR8

Samplerate: 44100 Hz
Channels: 2

foobar2000 1.4 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1
log date: 2019-02-16 14:31:16

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed: Ariana Grande / Grammy Nominees 2019 (1)
Backstreet Boys / Grammy Nominees 2019 (2)
Brandi Carlile / Grammy Nominees 2019 (3)
Camila Cabello feat. Young Thug / Grammy Nominees 2019 (4)
Cardi B, Bad Bunny & J Balvin / Grammy Nominees 2019 (5)
Childish Gambino / Grammy Nominees 2019 (6)
Christina Aguilera feat. Demi Lovato / Grammy Nominees 2019 (7)
Daniel Caesar feat. H.E.R. / Grammy Nominees 2019 (8)
Drake / Grammy Nominees 2019 (9)
Janelle Monáe / Grammy Nominees 2019 (10)
Justin Timberlake feat. Chris Stapleton / Grammy Nominees 2019 (11)
Kacey Musgraves / Grammy Nominees 2019 (12)
Kelly Clarkson / Grammy Nominees 2019 (13)
Kendrick Lamar & SZA / Grammy Nominees 2019 (14)
Lady Gaga & Bradley Cooper / Grammy Nominees 2019 (15)
Maroon 5 feat. Cardi B / Grammy Nominees 2019 (16)
P!nk / Grammy Nominees 2019 (17)
Post Malone feat. 21 Savage / Grammy Nominees 2019 (18)
Shawn Mendes / Grammy Nominees 2019 (19)
Taylor Swift / Grammy Nominees 2019 (20)
Tony Bennett & Diana Krall / Grammy Nominees 2019 (21)
Zedd, Maren Morris & Grey / Grammy Nominees 2019 (22)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DR Peak RMS Duration Track
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DR5 -0.07 dB -7.14 dB 3:13 12-God is a woman
DR6 -0.02 dB -7.78 dB 3:36 21-Don't go breaking my heart
DR4 -0.36 dB -6.58 dB 4:39 10-The joke
DR5 -0.39 dB -7.39 dB 2:57 13-Havana
DR6 -0.01 dB -7.90 dB 4:13 02-I like it
DR4 -0.37 dB -6.23 dB 3:29 09-This is America
DR5 -0.18 dB -6.80 dB 3:54 20-Fall in line
DR9 -0.02 dB -10.53 dB 3:30 08-Best part
DR6 -0.07 dB -9.72 dB 3:20 04-God's plan
DR6 -0.25 dB -7.55 dB 3:15 01-Make me feel
DR5 -0.02 dB -7.11 dB 4:38 18-Say something
DR6 -0.03 dB -9.58 dB 4:06 06-Slow burn
DR6 0.00 dB -8.43 dB 3:44 16-I don't think about you
DR4 -0.76 dB -6.12 dB 3:54 03-All the stars
DR5 -0.10 dB -9.52 dB 3:37 11-Shallow
DR6 -0.01 dB -8.13 dB 3:56 19-Girls like you
DR6 0.00 dB -8.72 dB 3:42 17-Beautiful trauma
DR4 -0.08 dB -5.61 dB 3:18 07-Rockstar
DR5 0.00 dB -7.62 dB 3:31 15-In my blood
DR3 -0.35 dB -6.26 dB 3:32 14-Look what you made me do
DR9 -0.06 dB -10.89 dB 2:48 22-'s wonderful
DR4 -0.29 dB -7.00 dB 3:05 05-The middle
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Number of tracks: 22
Official DR value: DR5

Samplerate: 44100 Hz
Channels: 2
Bits per sample: 16
Bitrate: 1014 kbps
Codec: FLAC
================================================================================
 

dlaloum

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 4, 2021
Messages
3,092
Likes
2,353
Something just came to mind, when were general pop recordings out with the most DR or Lufs or whatever measure you prefer? I'd say it was late 1950's to late 1970's. Though I have not done any survey to see if that turns out to be so.
There was a period during the initial few years of digital, when everything was about dynamic range - some recordings took it to ridiculous extents...

Lots of artists jumped aboard the CD bandwagon with the promise of expanded dynamic range / reduced noise floor - it was the main thing that improved over vinyl.

If you are going to record within a 14db range and push it to the top of the dynamic range available - the music will hide any noise, and there is no reason whatsoever to get anything better than a cassette and earbuds.

At the time digital came out - the primary reason for purchasing a CD player, was to get noise free wide dynamic range recordings - this was the push from the manufacturers of players, and the recording houses pushing the new format.

The loudness wars started to pick up again once CD had established itself as the "standard" format - which meant that it was no longer audiophiles / early adopters who were purchasing for their high end systems, now it was CD boomboxes, and CD walkmans (and CD car stereo's) that dominated the market, and the mass market gets what the mass market wants - the process was well in train by the late 80's.... but in 85, 86 there were lots of recordings that were exemplary.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,213
Likes
7,592
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
There was a period during the initial few years of digital, when everything was about dynamic range - some recordings took it to ridiculous extents...

Lots of artists jumped aboard the CD bandwagon with the promise of expanded dynamic range / reduced noise floor - it was the main thing that improved over vinyl.

If you are going to record within a 14db range and push it to the top of the dynamic range available - the music will hide any noise, and there is no reason whatsoever to get anything better than a cassette and earbuds.

At the time digital came out - the primary reason for purchasing a CD player, was to get noise free wide dynamic range recordings - this was the push from the manufacturers of players, and the recording houses pushing the new format.

The loudness wars started to pick up again once CD had established itself as the "standard" format - which meant that it was no longer audiophiles / early adopters who were purchasing for their high end systems, now it was CD boomboxes, and CD walkmans (and CD car stereo's) that dominated the market, and the mass market gets what the mass market wants - the process was well in train by the late 80's.... but in 85, 86 there were lots of recordings that were exemplary.
As I listen to more Classical music than anything else, I can tell you that early Digital recordings of Classical music often were completely uncompressed. A big selling point for fans of Classical music, who were the early adopters of the format. I was working at The Musical Offering Berkeley CA, 1988-1996. A CD store/cafe with a focus on Early Music. LPs were out, CDs were in. And I recorded concerts of Classical music, never needing to compress the results. I now realize that it was a mistake for the widest dynamic range music. Live and learn. Some of my recordings simply did not come across without a little gain riding. My best CD work---Kitka's "Nectar"---was subtly but necessarily compressed in post by other hands.

 

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,349
Likes
3,462
Location
San Diego
As I listen to more Classical music than anything else, I can tell you that early Digital recordings of Classical music often were completely uncompressed. A big selling point for fans of Classical music, who were the early adopters of the format. I was working at The Musical Offering Berkeley CA, 1988-1996. A CD store/cafe with a focus on Early Music. LPs were out, CDs were in. And I recorded concerts of Classical music, never needing to compress the results. I now realize that it was a mistake for the widest dynamic range music. Live and learn. Some of my recordings simply did not come across without a little gain riding. My best CD work---Kitka's "Nectar"---was subtly but necessarily compressed in post by other hands.

At least you can add compression after the recording is made. Do you know when the compression is applied during today's modern style loud recordings? I would like to think that someday there may be more dynamic versions of some current music released but fear a lot of the compression is applied during the original recording... and then more later.
 

Geert

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 20, 2020
Messages
1,938
Likes
3,526
Do you know when the compression is applied during today's modern style loud recordings?

Modern music? During mixdown on individual channels (instruments), instrument group busses, the stereo master bus, and again the stereo master during mastering. At each stage, sometimes multiple compressors and/or limiters in series.

Lot's of compression is part of the creative process, and not to drive loudness of the charts.
 
Last edited:

levimax

Major Contributor
Joined
Dec 28, 2018
Messages
2,349
Likes
3,462
Location
San Diego
Lost of compression is part of the creative process, and not to drive loudness of the charts.
I don't really have an issue with music intentionally recorded and mixed loud, obviously it is the modern style and is done on purpose. I do struggle with remasters such as this Dire Straits where the original creative process incorporated dynamics as part of the art. If people want old music to sound the same as new music that is cool but since most streaming services only carry the "latest and greatest" remaster then the sound of the original recording style is lost for most listeners. Not much to do about it except buy old CD's which at least for now are dirt cheap.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,213
Likes
7,592
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
At least you can add compression after the recording is made. Do you know when the compression is applied during today's modern style loud recordings? I would like to think that someday there may be more dynamic versions of some current music released but fear a lot of the compression is applied during the original recording... and then more later.
Brickwalling happens in post.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,213
Likes
7,592
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
I don't really have an issue with music intentionally recorded and mixed loud, obviously it is the modern style and is done on purpose. I do struggle with remasters such as this Dire Straits where the original creative process incorporated dynamics as part of the art. If people want old music to sound the same as new music that is cool but since most streaming services only carry the "latest and greatest" remaster then the sound of the original recording style is lost for most listeners. Not much to do about it except buy old CD's which at least for now are dirt cheap.
Then find an old copy.

Problem solved.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,213
Likes
7,592
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
As I listen to more Classical music than anything else, I can tell you that early Digital recordings of Classical music often were completely uncompressed. A big selling point for fans of Classical music, who were the early adopters of the format. I was working at The Musical Offering Berkeley CA, 1988-1996. A CD store/cafe with a focus on Early Music. LPs were out, CDs were in. And I recorded concerts of Classical music, never needing to compress the results. I now realize that it was a mistake for the widest dynamic range music. Live and learn. Some of my recordings simply did not come across without a little gain riding. My best CD work---Kitka's "Nectar"---was subtly but necessarily compressed in post by other hands.

I just compared the YouTube video of this track with a copy I ripped in Apple Lossless. I am glad to say that the dynamics of the issued CD match the YouTube. I know there is some sort of data compression with the YouTube, but I am not hearing a difference.
 

Newman

Major Contributor
Joined
Jan 6, 2017
Messages
3,452
Likes
4,216
Would you agree that regardless of listener preference that a dynamically compressed versions of a song has discarded information as compared to an original uncompressed version?
No, certainly not. Dynamic compression is a convolution algorithm that can be deconvoluted to the exact original — no information discarded. See Dolby B and C, dbx, and HDCD.

Clipping however will discard information.

In fact to the human perception mechanism, dynamic compression is very likely to increase the musical information, because of the way auditory perceptual masking works. But of course I am not assuming we want that, even though I think it was implied in your question.

And that is why this measuring-DR thing is such a pandora’s box, even a fool’s errand. Because when we apply dynamic compression it can make things sound better (at the same loudness), or it can make things sound worse (at the same loudness). So there is no goal eg higher DR = better sound. It is a false assertion. And that false assertion is the bedrock on which this whole Dynamic Range Scoring of Remasters movement is launched.

We really are at the mercy of the studio engineer’s judgement in doing a remaster: tweaking this, tweaking that, reviewing the effect, deciding on his or her final product. Whether you will like it more, or less, and whether the person next to you will concur, or not, is probably uncorrelated to even a good DR-enumeration tool, so I don’t recommend people even discuss it if they are wishing to ascertain the enjoyableness of various releases of any one album.

cheers

While it's no doubt flawed perhaps even fatally flawed you haven't given an alternative.
Hi, I think my words above cover your remark too.
 
Last edited:

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,213
Likes
7,592
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
No, certainly not. Dynamic compression is a convolution algorithm that can be deconvoluted to the exact original — no information discarded. See Dolby B and C, dbx, and HDCD.

Clipping however will discard information.

In fact to the human perception mechanism, dynamic compression is very likely to increase the musical information, because of the way auditory perceptual masking works. But of course I am not assuming we want that, even though it seemed it was implied in your question.

And that is why this measuring-DR thing is such a pandora’s box, even a fool’s errand. Because when we apply dynamic compression it can make things sound better (at the same loudness), or it can make things sound worse (at the same loudness). So there is no goal eg higher DR = better sound. It is a false assertion. And that false assertion is the bedrock on which this whole Dynamic Range Scoring of Remasters movement is launched.

We really are at the mercy of the studio engineer’s judgement in doing a remaster: tweaking this, tweaking that, reviewing the effect, deciding on his or her final product. Whether you will like it more, or less, and whether the person next to you will concur, or not, is probably uncorrelated to even a good DR-ennumeration tool, so I don’t recommend people even discuss it if they are wishing to ascertain the enjoyableness of various releases of any one album.

cheers


Hi, I think my words above cover your remark too.
I'd be curious what these DR comparisons would be like with the Giles Martin remixes of Beatles tracks.
 

JeremyFife

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 8, 2022
Messages
707
Likes
794
Location
Scotland
No, certainly not. Dynamic compression is a convolution algorithm that can be deconvoluted to the exact original — no information discarded. See Dolby B and C, dbx, and HDCD.

Clipping however will discard information.

In fact to the human perception mechanism, dynamic compression is very likely to increase the musical information, because of the way auditory perceptual masking works. But of course I am not assuming we want that, even though I think it was implied in your question.

And that is why this measuring-DR thing is such a pandora’s box, even a fool’s errand. Because when we apply dynamic compression it can make things sound better (at the same loudness), or it can make things sound worse (at the same loudness). So there is no goal eg higher DR = better sound. It is a false assertion. And that false assertion is the bedrock on which this whole Dynamic Range Scoring of Remasters movement is launched.

We really are at the mercy of the studio engineer’s judgement in doing a remaster: tweaking this, tweaking that, reviewing the effect, deciding on his or her final product. Whether you will like it more, or less, and whether the person next to you will concur, or not, is probably uncorrelated to even a good DR-enumeration tool, so I don’t recommend people even discuss it if they are wishing to ascertain the enjoyableness of various releases of any one album.

cheers


Hi, I think my words above cover your remark too.
Hi, and thanks.
If DR comparison is a red herring (a diversion, ultimately not helpful) then are there objective measurements that are useful for comparing different releases of music?
You say that clipping is 'lossy' so that seems relevant.
What's a sensible approach?

Obviously, I can just listen but I'd have to buy the music first. Also, while I enjoy music I do realise that my ears are not 'studio trained' so they are not great tools for this.

I do appreciate that some of this may not be audible or may be borderline. We measure inaudible differences in DACs, same principle
 

JeremyFife

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 8, 2022
Messages
707
Likes
794
Location
Scotland
Ever heard of streaming services? They make you listen to music without actually buying it :)
Interesting... I'll give that a shot ... :)

I use Amazon (whatever they call their Hi Res service now) through a WiiM mini - hi Res and works well (no, I can't hear a difference between hi-res and CD but that's a different issue)

Streaming is what led me to these thoughts. Streaming services just offer one version of a song - with no useful information on what it is. Buying physical media I can research the different releases and make a choice. Streaming, I'm stuck with what Amazon gives me.
I'm interested in 'seeing' what I'm getting - is it brickwalled, is it degraded, am I better off finding an old CD and ripping it.
For new music, is it actually better to buy vinyl (poor quality media containing better quality audio) which is weird in 2022.

It's a hobby, it's interesting
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,227
Likes
17,807
Location
Netherlands
Streaming is what led me to these thoughts. Streaming services just offer one version of a song - with no useful information on what it is.
If you're lucky you get a few versions at least, but usually, they are a recent CD version and a recent remaster. Almost never do you get the original CD release version (in the case of older albums that is).
Buying physical media I can research the different releases and make a choice. Streaming, I'm stuck with what Amazon gives me.
I'm interested in 'seeing' what I'm getting
For that reason, I ripped the old CD collection and I listen to it regularly vs streaming as well. Both have their advantages.
is it brickwalled, is it degraded, am I better off finding an old CD and ripping it.
How is it brick-walled and degraded if you get the lossless version? Sure it might not be the version you want, but it is still an original version.
 

restorer-john

Grand Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
12,581
Likes
38,283
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
Almost never do you get the original CD release version (in the case of older albums that is).

Is that right? Not being a streaming customer, I didn't know this.

Sounds like there will be an opportunity down the track for these streaming services to offer "original first release digital" tracks from carefully "curated" first pressing CDs extracted "bit for bit" for the discerning listener....
 

Mart68

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 22, 2021
Messages
2,609
Likes
4,861
Location
England
I try to buy the original CD release where I can. For me that is the most authentic to what was created in the studio at the time. I don't get hung up on which mastering sounds 'best.' Some recent re-masterings of 1970s music sound a bit fake to me. Too clean and sparkly. This is why I will never use a streaming service,

I don't have any bad-sounding CDs.
 

voodooless

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 16, 2020
Messages
10,227
Likes
17,807
Location
Netherlands
Is that right? Not being a streaming customer, I didn't know this.
If you dive into the metadata it's usually a version of the latest CD release available. With stuff from the before the 90's there are probably at least half a dozen releases that are all different (without calling them a remaster). Just check out https://dr.loudness-war.info/ on how many versions your favorite 80's album had and how different the DR is (even if you dispute that the DR rating is relevant, it shows that the versions are not the same). For instance, check out Thriller.
Sounds like there will be an opportunity down the track for these streaming services to offer "original first release digital" tracks from carefully "curated" first run CDs extracted "bit for bit" for the discerning listener....
That would be something! Instead of focusing on High-res, this would defiantly be a selling point!
 

JeremyFife

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jan 8, 2022
Messages
707
Likes
794
Location
Scotland
If you're lucky you get a few versions at least, but usually, they are a recent CD version and a recent remaster. Almost never do you get the original CD release version (in the case of older albums that is).

For that reason, I ripped the old CD collection and I listen to it regularly vs streaming as well. Both have their advantages.

How is it brick-walled and degraded if you get the lossless version? Sure it might not be the version you want, but it is still an original version.
That last point is the crux: recent cd releases, or versions mastering for streaming, may be hi-res lossless AND brickwalled... but you can't tell. Sites like this give some information about it and it's often not pretty.
 
Top Bottom