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

[Jimbob54]

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.

Never heard hendrix on vinyl but a lot of the digital stuff I've heard, even the estate authorised re releases, remasters etc sound awful. Like they forget it's not just about the wail.

 

[MRC01]

... 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

I've noticed the same thing - huge differences in sound quality across recordings. We audiophiles split hairs over barely perceptible differences, then listen to recordings that are night & day different.

I've found classical music is largely immune from the loudness wars, at least so far. Classical CDs and high res downloads are usually not remastered to sound "better" (e.g. louder and punchier). They are consistently natural sounding, free from dynamic range compression and other excessive studio processing.

I have that same recording & performance of the Arpeggione Sonata. It also says 96-24 on the cover, but it was produced in 1999. You can hear the limitations of the 1968 analog recording, but they are not offensive or distracting. The studio did not compress, equalize or otherwise squash the life out of the music. The sonics are excellent for its era, and still "good" or at least "not bad" even by modern standards.

With classical music, modern recordings are usually better, but not always. Contrast for example with the Hyperion recording of the Isserlis & Varjon performance of the same piece. This is a 96-24 "studio master" and it sounds ... well ... just "off". From my listening notes: "The sound is a bit diffuse, similar to out of phase, perhaps just distant miced. Sound is good but disappointing for a 96-24 studio master. Muted in the treble and veiled in the bass."

I suspect that both of these recordings sound pretty close to the original mic feed. The differences are likely not due to studio processing, but to the room they recorded in, the mics they used, how they positioned them, etc.

 

[MRC01]

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). ...

The exception is classical music. Which you probably already know, since you specified "newer popular music".

One exception I find in newer popular music is Steven Wilson. I only have a few of his albums, but they are all well engineered with excellent sound. Most recently, "The Raven Who Refused to Sing". That is prog rock how it SHOULD sound. Just wow. Wilson did a great job remixing Yes' first 5 albums. In my view, his is the definitive version of that seminal music.

 

[Frank Dernie]

I have that same recording & performance of the Arpeggione Sonata. It also says 96-24 on the cover, but it was produced in 1999. You can hear the limitations of the 1968 analog recording, but they are not offensive or distracting. The studio did not compress, equalize or otherwise squash the life out of the music. The sonics are excellent for its era, and still "good" or at least "not bad" even by modern standards.

Indeed, that is why it is such a shock to find Decca releasing such a poor sounding version of the same recording, with different accompaniments, 12 years later.
It is NOT loudness wars, more like FR manipulation. The newer one is harsh (digital glare!!!!) particularly the 1st movement.

 

[MRC01]

Indeed, that is why it is such a shock to find Decca releasing such a poor sounding version of the same recording, with different accompaniments, 12 years later.
It is NOT loudness wars, more like FR manipulation. The newer one is harsh (digital glare!!!!) particularly the 1st movement.

I have quite a few reissues of recordings from the 1960s. In some of them there's no tape hiss. That's a red flag for me. They sounds a bit wonky, diffuse or dead in mids & treble. Like they did some processing to remove the hiss that squashed something in the music too. Some tin-eared person probably though it sounded better without the tape hiss. Fortunately, this seems to be the exception rather than the norm.

 

[DSJR]

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.

The first Camel (Decca/Deram) CD's were done by my pals ex-boss (now retired) who told me he often added a db or two at 40Hz. The remasters done some years later were done by The Audio Archiving Company I think, who were then still located in the Belsize Road premises after Decca was closed down and moved out. I believe Paschal transferred tapes flat and one or two of his Camel remasterings did sound a touch 'leaner' than the originals, but no loudness war issues at all. I've no idea what happened subsequently though and don't have all their albums on CD (I do have Snow Goose though and love the music). I have to say the SH forums go too far into this kind of stuff with little real knowledge at all! In this case, I was by chance, able to speak to the horses mouth who actually worked with these tapes!

 

[tecnogadget]

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.

Thats the reason sometimes I listen to Vinyl rips. not because they inherit some voodo magic just for “being vinyls” but for the improvement of master transfer and great DR.

I can’t t believe this is happening to contemporary music, its pretty much stupid since its being recorded in full digital domain, and you gotta have the Vinyl or otherwise both CD and digital HighRes releases are compressed.
The industry has gone bananas.

 

[Tks]

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:


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.

I hate this so much. Likewise with visual materials. Many of these pieces of information are lost to the annals of history. Likewise trying to track down native (or close to native) quality brochure/manual/cover art for some pieces of music.

 

[levimax]

Never heard hendrix on vinyl but a lot of the digital stuff I've heard, even the estate authorised re releases, remasters etc sound awful. Like they forget it's not just about the wail.

I have a lot of classic rock on "original vinyl" as well as original CD's and now as "remastered digital" streaming. For the most part classic rock is not really very well recorded in the first place (James Taylor excepted). Still it is rare for me to find a remaster I prefer to the original LP .... modern technology is great but it can't fix damaged master tapes.... which is why the new Hendrix releases don't sound better than previous releases (usually worse as the processing used trying to fix the damaged master tapes creates it's own problems). I have a noisy old original "Are you Experienced" LP which I prefer to a brand new "all analog" reissue.... despite terrible surface noise on the original.

 

[MRC01]

... What aren't compressed are the vinyl versions. Apparently audiophiles (at least in the minds of producers) only listen to vinyl. ...

Vinyl has less extreme dynamic squashing/compression, but the reason isn't because they think audiophiles listen to it. It's because on vinyl it's impossible to lift the full frequency spectrum (especially bass) up to max levels and keep it there, due to technical limitations of groove size, needle tracking, reducing fidelity as you approach the inner groove, and RIAA equalization.

In that sense, one could say the technical limitations of vinyl aren't entirely a bad thing. They limit how much the studios can squash the music to death.

 

[scott wurcer]

Vinyl has less extreme dynamic squashing/compression, but the reason isn't because they think audiophiles listen to it.

There's no way vinyl has inherently more dynamic range, I have Redbook CD's that have so much dynamic range that they are unlistenable unless you live in an anechoic cave. BTW I have some 45's from the 60's where the VU meter sits at +-1dB.

 

[MRC01]

I didn't say vinyl has more dynamic range than CD; of course it doesn't. I said "Vinyl has less extreme dynamic squashing/compression". By that I meant when studio engineers apply dynamic compression to make a track sound as loud as possible, they can't cut vinyl with the same degree of extreme compression as they can with a CD. If they boosted all the quiet parts to max levels, on vinyl the bass would require huge groove excursions that would distort everything else. They'd have to reduce the overall level, which makes it quieter, undermining the purpose of dynamic compression which is to make it sound as loud as possible.

Of course, most LPs are dynamically compressed because its limited dynamic range may require this. But the limitations of vinyl prevent engineers from applying the extreme levels of compression that they can with CD. They can't boost everything to peak levels for the entire side of the record, like they can with CD. Well, perhaps they could, but it would sound even more horrible on vinyl than it would on CD.

PS: it's worth adding that most of the amplitude of the overall musical waveform is in the bass, so the dynamic range or "DR14" rating of a track usually goes up if you do nothing more than reduce bass (apply high pass filter). Vinyl can't handle the same level of bass that digital encoding can, so they usually reduce the amount of low bass in the vinyl version, which has the side effect of giving it a higher DR14 rating.

 

[MRC01]

... I have Redbook CD's that have so much dynamic range that they are unlistenable unless you live in an anechoic cave. ...

I love that kind of stuff. Care to share any of them?
This deserves an entire thread of its own: highest DR recordings.

 

[scott wurcer]

I love that kind of stuff. Care to share any of them?
This deserves an entire thread of its own: highest DR recordings.

Yes, the Kodo Drummers on Reference Recordings not Sheffield Labs. Can't find it on their site, when things get better I would gladly send you my copy for free.

EDIT - It might have been on Sheffield Labs I have to check.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Yes, the Kodo Drummers on Reference Recordings not Sheffield Labs. Can't find it on their site, when things get better I would gladly send you my copy for free.

EDIT - It might have been on Sheffield Labs I have to check.

Sheffield or Sony.

 

[scott wurcer]

Sheffield or Sony.

Definitely not Sony. The drums hit 0dB while some of the folk singing was inaudible if set at a reasonable social listening level I simply don't listen at loud levels ever.

 

[MRC01]

Another one is Drums & Bells, a percussion album with Brad Dutz & Chris Wabich. Not only big uncompressed dynamic range, but great realistic sounding recording all around.
http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=Brad Dutz & Chris Wabich Percussion Duo

 

[Mnyb]

I've noticed the same thing - huge differences in sound quality across recordings. We audiophiles split hairs over barely perceptible differences, then listen to recordings that are night & day different.

I've found classical music is largely immune from the loudness wars, at least so far. Classical CDs and high res downloads are usually not remastered to sound "better" (e.g. louder and punchier). They are consistently natural sounding, free from dynamic range compression and other excessive studio processing.

I have that same recording & performance of the Arpeggione Sonata. It also says 96-24 on the cover, but it was produced in 1999. You can hear the limitations of the 1968 analog recording, but they are not offensive or distracting. The studio did not compress, equalize or otherwise squash the life out of the music. The sonics are excellent for its era, and still "good" or at least "not bad" even by modern standards.

With classical music, modern recordings are usually better, but not always. Contrast for example with the Hyperion recording of the Isserlis & Varjon performance of the same piece. This is a 96-24 "studio master" and it sounds ... well ... just "off". From my listening notes: "The sound is a bit diffuse, similar to out of phase, perhaps just distant miced. Sound is good but disappointing for a 96-24 studio master. Muted in the treble and veiled in the bass."

I suspect that both of these recordings sound pretty close to the original mic feed. The differences are likely not due to studio processing, but to the room they recorded in, the mics they used, how they positioned them, etc.

Old classical and Jazz records have an advantage over old rock and pop , lack of excessive generational losses ..

I think we can tolerate some hiss and a couple of passes trough the analog tape machine . But to produce rock the old way it’s a lot lot of copying tracks back and forth trough effect loops and overdubs, in the old analog way you have a penalty attached to everything you try to do.

 

[ferrellms]

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.

You make strong claims with no evidence. I disagree with all of them, with no evidence other than all the years of empirical evidence on noise, distortion. dynamic range of different formats (also my ears which show vinyl, although sometimes quite good, is deficient and colored.)

 

[Putter]

You make strong claims with no evidence. I disagree with all of them, with no evidence other than all the years of empirical evidence on noise, distortion. dynamic range of different formats (also my ears which show vinyl, although sometimes quite good, is deficient and colored.)

My claims of the difference in dynamic range between vinyl recordings and compact discs come from the dynamic range database which almost without exception show greater dynamic range for vinyl vs. compact discs for modern pop music, for example Adele's 21 album which has an average dynamic range of between 5 and 7 for the CD while the vinyl record has a dynamic range of 11. I don't disagree that the compact disk and almost any digital technology including MP3 have a potentially greater dynamic range, lower distortion, noise and better frequency response than a vinyl record.

My main point was simply that most modern releases of popular music have less dynamic range for CD's and other digital media while records seem to be less affected.