The difference between recordings exceeds that of the difference between hifi systems

[Frank Dernie]

I have more than one hifi system at home. They differ in sound quality but they are all to my liking, otherwise I wouldn't keep them.
I have noticed for years there are bigger differences in SQ between recordings than between my various systems.
I was just going through some discs to tidy up and came across one with the Britten/Rostropovitch Schubert Arpeggione Sonata (which is an all time favourite) amongst other pieces with a banner reading "96kHz-24 bit remastering". It was released in 2007.
I put it on and it sounded awful. Hideous glare and pretty well unlistenable. The original recording was 1968 and there is a touch of tape overload on the crescendos but this was hideous.
I put on the disc I usually listen to this piece from, a much older CD version from 1995 with different filler. It sounds as fabulous as always.
How can such an abomination as this 2007 remaster have ever been issued? The levels aren't blatantly higher, and it isn't hitting the limiter.
Also, showing how little effort was put into the release, it is referred to as "Sonata for Arpeggione and Piano" rather than Arpeggione Sonata for Cello and Piano ffs!
How can Decca let such a cretin loose on such a fabulous original

 

[Thomas savage]

Ime it's true and ironic that as audiophiles we obsess about the 2% we can control while 98% is in another's hands.

It's kinda funny that no matter what you spend or believe as a end user your not in control of very much. So all we discuss and all the subjective objective bollocks don't boil down to a hill of beans ..

 

[majingotan]

That's how it should be in "true" hi-fidelity. The hi-fidelity system should reproduce the recording with minimal alterations before it goes to the speakers, and because of that the system exposes the difference in recordings very noticeably

 

[ctrl]

I have noticed for years there are bigger differences in SQ between recordings than between my various systems. ...
How can such an abomination as this 2007 remaster have ever been issued?

In many cases, it might be due to the studio/mastering monitors or their room adjustment (sound engineers with hearing impairments not included).

A studio monitor with, for example, a heavy BBC dip between 2-3kHz will certainly have an effect on the recordings.

My negative example is the title "Be My Husband" by Yolanda Rabun, whose voice I like very much. But on the CD it doesn't sound natural anymore.

Go to 03:34min

With high sound pressure heard, the "ears begin to bleed".

Compare this to her "live voice" at the same part in the song 01:31min

Live the voice sounds completely different and more natural.

If we look at the frequency spectrogram of the live recording at 1:31, everything looks normal.
The fundamental A4 at 440Hz and the 4th overtone C#7 at 2217Hz is excited. The fundamental tone clearly dominates the overtone.

Let's compare the same part in the song on the CD at 3:34min.
There the fundamental is at 415Hz G#4 and the excited overtone D#7 at 2489Hz. Strangely enough this is the 5th overtone.
But the important thing is that the overtone clearly exceeds the fundamental tone in sound pressure - which might be cause the unnatural sound.

I wonder if someone raised the range between 2-3kHz during recording or mastering to make the voice sound more "penetrating" because the monitor did not deliver enough "sound power" in this range?
I could imagine something similar with the remastered Schubert recording you mentioned.

 

[DuxServit]

I have more than one hifi system at home. They differ in sound quality but they are all to my liking, otherwise I wouldn't keep them.
I have noticed for years there are bigger differences in SQ between recordings than between my various systems.
I was just going through some discs to tidy up and came across one with the Britten/Rostropovitch Schubert Arpeggione Sonata (which is an all time favourite) amongst other pieces with a banner reading "96kHz-24 bit remastering". It was released in 2007.
I put it on and it sounded awful. Hideous glare and pretty well unlistenable. The original recording was 1968 and there is a touch of tape overload on the crescendos but this was hideous.
I put on the disc I usually listen to this piece from, a much older CD version from 1995 with different filler. It sounds as fabulous as always.
How can such an abomination as this 2007 remaster have ever been issued? The levels aren't blatantly higher, and it isn't hitting the limiter.
Also, showing how little effort was put into the release, it is referred to as "Sonata for Arpeggione and Piano" rather than Arpeggione Sonata for Cello and Piano ffs!
How can Decca let such a cretin loose on such a fabulous original

My personal rule for classical CDs is to buy early pressings (better if first-pressings). I think the engineers who worked on these early recordings put so much better care in their work.

Let me clarify:

I put on the disc I usually listen to this piece from, a much older CD version from 1995 with different filler. It sounds as fabulous as always. How can such an abomination as this 2007 remaster have ever been issued?

Just because a new disc says "96kHz-24 bit remastering" it doesn't mean anything. Plenty of albums on HD-Tacks have zero information about who/when/what regarding the "remastering" but they are listed as 92/24.

One thing I like about the recent DGG Blu-Rays is that the booklet clearly provides information about the person/company that did the "remastering". So their name and reputation is on the hook (for many years to come). Same with the some of the Archiv releases in Japan on SACD.

 

[Wes]

I lost my car keys in a dark alley and was looking for them under a street light last night...

 

[Bob-23]

How can Decca let such a cretin loose on such a fabulous original

There are, indeed, tremendous differences in the sound quality of today's recordings, even in Classical and Jazz which are luckily still widely exempt from the miserable 'state of the art' of pop music recording. But even in Jazz I sometimes find drums ranging from the very left to the very right of the soundstage, the mixer might take some biology lessons regarding the length of human arms; or, you find that all the instruments are cramped into the middle of the soundstage, one instrument over the other, the room in which the mixing took place might have been of cardboard size, I guess.

With regard to remastering I'd rather prefer the term 'demastering', in very many cases, in particular in pop music, that stuff is unlistenable, compressed to death, a whole dimension of music (pp to ff) has been thrown off.

Generally you might give a try to Manfred Eicher's 'ECM' (but the don't remaster), in particular for Jazz (Classical, too) - I haven't been dissapointed yet, usually SQ is great.

Here's, btw, a site, testing dynamic range, in case you don't already know.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/

 

[Doodski]

My favorite example of a hideous mix/CD recording versus the LP is Jimi Hendrix Electric Ladyland. The LP sounds fantastic and the CD sounds horrible.

 

[DuxServit]

My favorite example of a hideous mix/CD recording versus the LP is Jimi Hendrix Electric Ladyland. The LP sounds fantastic and the CD sounds horrible.

I’m still waiting for the AYE on SACD, it’s taking forever to come out...

 

[Doodski]

I’m still waiting for the AYE on SACD, it’s taking forever to come out...

Yeah, that release is a debut studio album and full of great hits.

 

[tecnogadget]

Great thread Frank Dernie! What you have brought up is of the uttermost importance for sound reproduction

Even though Recording Studios and common public Listening Rooms look like two different worlds, there lays a symbiosis.
You need Reference Sound System + High-Quality Music in order to achieve Nirvana. Even the best systems won't amaze if you feed when with a bad recording (bad mixing levels, microphone clipping, bad use of effects and eq, low dynamic range, indiscriminate use of compressors, bad mastering).

"Garbage in - Garbage out "

"Loudness War" has been the biggest enemy of audio Nirvana in the last decades... Instead of listening to natural recordings (of any genre), we get an over-processed and over-compressed (compressor in the realm of mixing/mastering reducing Dynamic Range of instruments, not talking about bitrate and such) music with low dynamic range.

Low DR music may sound as better to the untrained ear and low fi gear because it is louder in level (relative to 0dB), but for anybody that cares about music, it just sounds tiresome con compromised. Every instrument having the same loudness kills life in music and makes it sound as noise.

Looking at the above example, it does not even matter which artist or song is, what matters is that the top version will sound better (higher dynamic range and propper mastering) than the bottom will suck (lack of dynamic range at all, indiscriminate use of compression, clipping).
It does not matter if you have the best reproduction system in the world, the bottom master will suck.

 

[ctrl]

My favorite example of a hideous mix/CD recording versus the LP is Jimi Hendrix Electric Ladyland. The LP sounds fantastic and the CD sounds horrible.

I don't have the LP version, but besides the normal CD version on Amazon Music there is also "At Last... The Beginning - The Making of Electric Ladyland: The Early Takes Sampler".

If I compare the song "Long Hot Summer Night (Take 14)" (instruments only) with the same song on the normal CD, I can absolutely understand your statement. The sound of the normal CD version is really unbearable.

 

[Wombat]

I have more than one hifi system at home. They differ in sound quality but they are all to my liking, otherwise I wouldn't keep them.
I have noticed for years there are bigger differences in SQ between recordings than between my various systems.
I was just going through some discs to tidy up and came across one with the Britten/Rostropovitch Schubert Arpeggione Sonata (which is an all time favourite) amongst other pieces with a banner reading "96kHz-24 bit remastering". It was released in 2007.
I put it on and it sounded awful. Hideous glare and pretty well unlistenable. The original recording was 1968 and there is a touch of tape overload on the crescendos but this was hideous.
I put on the disc I usually listen to this piece from, a much older CD version from 1995 with different filler. It sounds as fabulous as always.
How can such an abomination as this 2007 remaster have ever been issued? The levels aren't blatantly higher, and it isn't hitting the limiter.
Also, showing how little effort was put into the release, it is referred to as "Sonata for Arpeggione and Piano" rather than Arpeggione Sonata for Cello and Piano ffs!
How can Decca let such a cretin loose on such a fabulous original

Celebrity re-mixers/re-masterers.

 

[Igor Kirkwood]

Ime it's true and ironic that as audiophiles we obsess about the 2% we can control while 98% is in another's hands.
..

Pehaps more than 2 % !

But it's difficult for me to give my number.... I am a sound engineer for classical music .... cannot be judge and defendant !

 

[raindance]

I'm a fan of Camel, make of that what you might , however I got sucked into buying a modern remaster of "the snow goose" by reading a thread at the Steve Hoffman forums about flat transfers... compared to my old original issue CD, it sounds muffled and lifeless - you can't even hear breath sounds on the flute.

 

[Frank Dernie]

My favorite example of a hideous mix/CD recording versus the LP is Jimi Hendrix Electric Ladyland. The LP sounds fantastic and the CD sounds horrible.

My point was the difference in sound between 2 CDs of the same performance released 12 years apart.
No obvious loudness difference either.

 

[scott wurcer]

My favorite example of a hideous mix/CD recording versus the LP is Jimi Hendrix Electric Ladyland. The LP sounds fantastic and the CD sounds horrible.

Which one, I have the first Polydor 1980's CD release (with naked ladies cover). Since the FamilyLLC took over I have not liked much.

 

[Putter]

Let me add my whine. As primarily a CD listener, virtually any of newer popular music CD's whether original or remastered or compressed. The remastered CD's are ALWAYS COMPRESSED (I'm sure someone will find an exception).

What aren't compressed are the vinyl versions. Apparently audiophiles (at least in the minds of producers) only listen to vinyl. So I basically look for the older CD's which admittedly can be picked for $1 or less. I do notice that when I see reviews on Amazon, there are almost always complaints about bad vinyl pressings.

 

[Thomas savage]

The industry masters for most popular use.

The one in a million guy listening on a hifi is not the market.

I wish they made it for ' us ' and the various other platforms ' down sampled ' or compressed it at point of use but nobody cares about ' us '. It's only going to get worse now so many listen on single speaker setups . So it's not just the mobile user we fight , the home user is now giving it to us too.

There's no way back.

Ironically we all might have to go back to vinyl to get ' state of the art ' home hifi.

Humans !

 

[StevenEleven]

I’ll give a positive example! As technology has improved the recordings of the Ellington Blanton-Webster band (as well as many Charlie Parker recordings) have been remastered to sound better and better. It is a treat to hear those in improved sound. The greatness (as with much great music) was largely personality-driven. Once they’re gone there are no do-overs in terms of the performance. But the improved remasterings help me to get inside the music more and more (I’m not that old to have lived and seen it). In this case I am thinking of the LPs versus the 1990 remasters that I have on CD versus the 1999 remasters I am listening to right now over Spotify.

https://www.allmusic.com/album/never-no-lament-the-blanton-webster-band-mw0000023432

I think of myself as more a music guy than a sound guy (though you might not know if from all of the electronic junk around my house). Hifi has always been an engaging pastime for me, but I can enjoy the heck out of the music I love on a cheap radio. BUT early jazz with the benefit of modern technology in terms of improved speakers and and remastering with modern technology is wonderful. When I sit in front of my Hifi I am a kid in a candy store with today’s streaming services.