Hi there! I'm wondering if it's just me, or whether a lot of modern CD (I don't listen to vinyl - I have no turntable) remasterings don't do justice to the original recordings? Recent remasterings I've bought (in the last 7-8 years, in particular) not only are virtually identical to the previous release of remasters, but in some cases, inferior.

My listening equipment is a Sony 557ESD using Sennheiser HD600 headphones, which is quite forensic in its ability to discern nuances in audio quality.

For example, Visage's 'The Anvil' released on Cherry Red in 2008 doesn't specifically say it's remastered, which is just as well, as I can't differentiate the audio quality with the orginal pressing, which is more than 20 years old.

Listening to the double CD set of Midge Ure's Pure & Breathe (Edsel Records, 2009) revealed no improvement for 'Pure' but a significant loss in transparency for 'Breathe' compared to the original pressing, although the bonus tracks on this CD were sonically, far superior.

I found the sound quality of the (double disc) Ultravox remasters on a par with the earlier (single disc) remasters on 'EMI Gold' ten or so years earlier, except for 'Lament' which was noticeably inferior to the remaster. Having said this, the EMI Gold remasters resulted in significantly improved audio for all releases.

So what's happening here? I sent an e-mail to Chrysalis in London two years ago, but didn't receive the courtesy of a reply. Is it a coincidence that all these albums were in the EMI stable? Have the original master tapes deteriorated with time such that they are now compromised?

I think part of the problem is digital to analogue converters (DAC's), which convert the digital information on CD's (But not SACD's) to music. I found that over the years, multi-bit DAC's are far superior to single-bit DAC's when auditioning CD's. There really is no comparison, and the expression 'chalk-and-cheese' comes to mind. Multi-bit DAC's are more expensive to manufacture and are prone to calibration errors, so careful selection and grading of these components is required. Therein lies the rub. However, I'm no engineer, and further contributions will have to wait until I learn more about this technology.

There's also the 'loudness wars' to consider, whereby engineers boost signal levels in an attempt to achieve a superficially more enticing sound. I've enclosed a video link, if you're interested.



I'm hoping that that the new Ultravox album won't be mastered in the way that, say, the last Depeche Mode album was....

To a great extent this is a subjective conversation as to 'what sounds better?' but, to my mind, the issues predominantly are the following - and they are not necessarily mutually exclusive:

- The loudness war is the main issue but this is to a great extent a symptom rather than a cause: recordings are mastered to reflect the audience and technology.

- the technology used by a growing majority of the music-listening population is simply inferior in its reproductive capabilities whether it's because it's a poor digital conversaion, whether it's simply an MP3 (as opposed to lossless), whether it's because any particular phone or pc is not that great at reproducing audio (often through poor set up) or because the listener is using shitty speakers or earplugs.

- perhaps most importantly music is considered more 'disposable' than at any time before (in my opinion). Linked to this is the decline of the physical format.

If you put these factors together then it is no surprise that the quality of the finished product tends to be lacking.

In the old days, there was only one real format (vinyl) and this had to be good enough to cover poor, average & good quality audio systems. Today there are more options and the quality of the reproduction is startlingly different across the formats. You used Depeche Mode as an example and they are a good one to illustrate this phenomena.

Take the 2006 remasters. The CD quality is not very good: the releases are largely brickwalled to compete with mass-market requirements. However, listen to the SACDs and the vinyl & the quality is significantly better since the engineers seem to have taken the time to build a quality product to reflect the tastes of people likely to buy those formats.

The same can be said of The last two Killer albums (quite nice on vinyl and a mess on CD). And don't get me started on David Sylvian's butchering of his own back catalogue.

I could go further and would love to see everything released on a HD format (SACD, DVD-A, 24/96 FLAC and even vinyl) as well as a CD and MP3 release) but I realise that this will not happen for the majority of releases simply because economics will not allow it when music sales and/or margins on physical product are so low.

I leave you with a few thoughts:

- I really hope there is a properly mastered HD format for the new Ultravox album. I doubt it will happen though.

- the vinyl release of 'Moments From Eden' is lovely even though it is pressed on coloured vinyl (which often sounds worse than good old-fashioned black). Let's hope the same level of care & thought is used for the new album.

- when I looked at the Lament remaster I thought it sounded very, very similar to the original vinyl release.

- it's horses for courses: if I'm playing music while driving my car I actually prefer to listen to the overly compressed remasters of many tracks since with all the audible distractions I'm more likely to actually hear the song . . . when I'm sat in the lounge with the lights off, it's a different issue.

AWS

Hello, 'Alone with Strangers' and thank you for the time and effort in your expeditious reply.

I disagree that (pop/electronic/rock) music is considered more 'disposable' than ever before. There is certainly more choice available (smaller portable devices with ever increasing storage capability) and these days you can buy album tracks individually. I think there will always be a demand for portable audio.

You may have 'hit the nail on the head' when you said that margins are so low. So, the response from the music industry is to degrade the audio quality of a non-renewable product (the CD) and to require people to turn to a prevously redundant product that slowly self-destructs every time it's played, and is prone to physical damage (dust, etc)? It's no wonder that favourable comparisons are made to vinyl when the competition is nobbled. I think that this is a very manipulative means of achieving an end, when perhaps one of the reasons that CD sales are falling is that they are being deliberately sabotaged (sonically) by inferior mastering. This is not subjective. It can be measured (refer to my previous video link).

In addition, the multiplicity of formats is wasteful. If the industry was more collaborative, costs could be reduced by reducing the number of formats available. You really only need three or four, at the most: HD, standard D (CD/LP) and portable D.

I beleive that another reason for the declne of music sales is the lack of diversity and inventiveness of music. Shareholders are generally risk averse and music I'm hearing now is more derivative than it's ever been.

There are exceptions, of course, and the advent of self publishing and the internet offers some hope to the small independent artists, and over time, to the music industry in general. Sometimes a longer term view is required, that extends beyond any given fiscal year, and treats customers with the respect that they deserve.

I'll leave you with this small digression; about the 'Lament' new remaster (double disc), as I don't have a turntable (as previously stated), I can't comment on the quality vs. vinyl, but my observations were a comparison with the 'old' cd remaster (single disc).

When I bought the Lament 2-disc remaster I initially thought it was faulty as the sound was a bit 'cloudy' and dull compared to the '99 release. Having said that, when I played the '99 disc again recently it actually sounded quite bright so perhaps that made the later edition seem duller by comparison.

As I said - it is a very subjective area and I don't think there is anything wrong with MP3s, etc per-se. My comments are around the overall migration of the industry towards a lossy format using highly compressed music.

As for the 'disposable' side of things, my comments were actually more aimed at the use of artists, musical styles, etc in a hit factory environment. Think of all the hype that goes into X Factor for months at a time with the trumpet-blowing of a 'winner' that, by the time the next series starts, is almost completely forgotten.

Although I've used the word 'style' above I accept that no one music type is better than any other: each to his own. But, in the environment we have, how does 'quality' fit into it and, apart from personal satisfaction & a sense of pride, where is the incentive for an artist to produce a 'quality' product that will be bought by no more than a handful of people?

This same debate has just started up on the Japan-Pioneers Yahoo group about Sylvian's latest compilation and - as you'd expect - there are diverse views there as well.

AWS

Hello again, 'Alone With Strangers'.

I think there's an assumption in the music industry, or at least a view held by parts thereof, that an increasing number of consumers actually prefer compressed music, and that this justifies audio compression (AKA the 'loudness wars'). I'm not so sure of this, so I did some digging.

I found an article (the link is included, below) that shows the relationship between loudness, noisiness and the number of singles per artists in the British charts (Ultravox is positioned between Level 42 and the Rolling Stones).

http://blog.last.fm/2011/07/15/anatomy-of-the-uk-charts-part-4-survival-of-the-flattest

It can be seen from this chart that there is no difference between the loudness/noisiness and the number of singles. This position is also supported by a 20 minute video posted on turnmeup.org titled 'loudness war and sales:the-truth' which supports this conclusion.

Why then, is the practice of compression becoming so prevalent? If most consumers' purchasing habits aren't affected by compression, can't the musical legacy of an artist be respected and given proper mastering? Is quality audio mastering so expensive that it cannot be justified in the context of a budget for producing/marketing an album? Is a 'compressed' mastering process (AKA 'the loudness wars')inherently less expensive than a 'normal', uncompressed mastering process?

Further to my previous posts, I’m providing additional supporting information to my argument that the audio quality of new releases and remasterings is being compromised. I’ve also provided some information about Digital-to-Analogue converters in CD players, as well as information on falling sales of CD, possible solutions, and the sound quality of ‘Brilliant’.

A) Mastering compression (AKA ‘the loudness wars’) & audio quality:-

1) ’The Obsession with Compression’ a research project dissertation by Dave Viney, a post-graduate student of audio technology, London College of Music.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/8441718/DRD/project%20dissertation.pdf (2.89MB)

This a hefty download, At 2.89MB, so I’ve listed the conclusions of this paper:

Key finding:

• “There is no evidence of any significant correlation between loudness (& implied compression) and commercial success”.

Secondary finding:

• “Recordings with little ‘processing’ & ‘compression’ sound ‘more pleasant’ & ‘above average quality’ and are more commercially successful”.
• “Assessments are highly subjective”.
• “Sales success is closely interlinked with radio & TV airplay”.
• “Loudness profiles (patterns of dynamic change) may be more important than overall (average or maximum) loudness in determining its perceived level”.

2) ‘The Loudness War: Background, Speculation and Recommendations’ by Earl Vickers, ST Microelectronics, Santa Clara, California. This was presented at the 129th annual conference of the Audio Engineering Society in California in November 2010.

http://www.sfxmachine.com/docs/loudnesswar/loudness_war.pdf (840KB)

I’ve included two contributions from the aforementioned presentation, for which the source links (below) may be of interest:-

“In 2001, mastering engineer Bob Speer wrote, “The record labels blame digital downloads, MP3s, CD burners, and others for the lack of CD sales. While there is some truth to their constant whining, they only have themselves to blame for the steady decline in CD sales.

Much of the music being produced today isn’t music at all.... It’s anti-music because the life is being squashed out of it through over-compression during the tracking, mixing, and mastering stages.... It’s no wonder that consumers don’t want to pay for the CDs being produced today. They’re over-priced and they sound bad.”

(Bob Speer, “What Happened to Dynamic Range?”, CD Mastering Services, 2001,

http://www.cdmasteringservices.com/dynamicrange.htm

(accessed 2010 June 18.)

And also:

“Southall wrote, “Compression will continue to be abused in the pursuit of loudness for as long as the recording industry believes that louder shifts units....Global album sales are falling year-on-year, far less mega-million-selling records are occurring... and I think this is because the clamour to make music louder has made it less loveable, and in the long run lovable sells more”.

(Nick Southall, “Imperfect Sound Forever Revisited,” Stylus (online), 2006 June 12,
http://www.stylusmagazine.com/articles/soulseeking/imperfect-sound-forever-revisited.htm,
accessed 2010 July 17).

Conclusions from the presentation:-

“The industry may have over-extrapolated from studies showing a preference for the louder of two otherwise identical recordings. While listeners do prefer a louder version of the same recording, loudness does not seem to play a significant role when comparing different songs, nor does it appear to be significantly correlated to sales ranking.

In general, content trumps loudness. The ear is more sensitive to things like pitch and rhythm than it is to relatively small differences in loudness. Likewise, the brain is generally more interested in melody, harmony, instrumentation, vocal quality, style, genre, lyrical content, spaciousness, texture, emotion, and other factors than it is in small loudness changes, especially since loudness can easily be adjusted using the volume control. We do not yet have knobs for most of these other factors”.


B) Digital- to-Analogue converters (‘DAC’s)


As mentioned in my previous post, the type of DAC’s in CD players is significant for audio quality. Here are two articles for you:-

1) Soundfountain Audio and Music Bulletin - This article provides a primer for relevant issues affecting DAC’s and should be reasonably accessible, although scratchily written.

http://www.soundfountain.com/amb/noisesheng.html

Key point of the article wrt DAC’s:-

“Many times we have witnessed demonstrations with DA Converters from Audio Research and Threshold at the time. When I asked the demonstrator if it was possible to connect a multi bit DAC, in most cases they were able to produce such a component. For all listeners it was evident that the five times more expensive low bitters could not match the quality of the multi bit DAC”.

2) DAC architecture: multi-bit and single-bit DAC’s, performance factors and comparisons.

http://www.jitter.de/pdfextern/DesignSem5.pdf (566KB)

Summary of conclusion: Multi-Bit DAC’s were evaluated as outperforming Single-Bit DAC’s, especially in low-level signal response (e.g -60dB) and ‘jitter’ tolerance. However, the Single-Bit DAC’s are considerably cheaper to manufacture, as Multi-Bit DAC’s require precise calibration.

Most DAC’s for CD players these days, as well as for various digital audio replay devices use Single-Bit DAC’s. Needless to say, PC’s and video-based technology (e.g LCD and plasma systems) don’t use Multi-Bit DAC’s. Some ‘high-end’ equipment uses various forms of Single-Bit DAC’s.

I’ve never heard a Single-Bit DAC based CD player that was superior to a player containing Multi-Bit DAC’s. Often, the difference was stark and defied belief.


C) Falling sales of CD’s - industry and consultant report.

http://musicindustryblog.wordpress.com/2...-driven-crisis/

The ‘Music Industry Blog’ discusses several points of concern (I’ll summarise):-

• CD sales are falling at an alarming rate – the growth of digital sales amounted to less than half of the amount of decline in sales of the CD.

• The single continues to drag revenue growth down – digital singles sell at three times the rate of digital albums.

• The CD buyer is withering on the vine – fewer traditional ‘high street’ shops to buy from.

• The CD is disappearing from the living room – Television-based systems are used for viewing, rather than for listening.

• ‘Digital Refusniks’ – people who won’t embrace digital purchases.

Suggested solutions in this blog (summarised):-

• Digitize the relationship – establish digital relationships with customers (not on-line physical sales) for a digital platform revenue strategy.

• A format succession strategy needs putting in place – a ‘human needs assessment’ made for a ‘human needs product strategy’ perhaps using some physical accompaniments (e.g artwork) with the digital purchase, to coax customers to the digital format.

• A new beachhead in the living room – a hybrid (digital streaming and CD) player.

• With respect to ‘Digital Refusniks’ “are a challenging and unfashionable demographic and the counter-case for addressing them is that in 10 years or so they’ll have disappeared from the market anyway”. (I thought it was worthwhile quoting this).

http://pfeifferreport.com/trends/Pfeiffer_Music_Rep.pdf (1.8MB)

As this download is 1.8MB, I’ll summarise the recommendations:-

• Reinvent the music store – the store can be a lounge, bar or even a nightclub.

• Make it easy and pleasant to discover music – any CD on any shelf with equipment that enables appreciation of differences between MP3 files and CD’s.

• Don’t fight the on-line world – embrace samples, music listening web sites and even downloads.

• Deliver a unique experience – a place where it’s ‘cool’ to hang out and meet people.

• Make the music store a lifestyle experience - specialist stores for specialised audiences, with add-on sales (e.g merchandise).


D) Falling sales of CD’s – my view.

It is clear that the audio quality of the CD has declined due to unsympathetic mastering, compressing the dynamic range (AKA The ‘Loudness Wars’) of the CD to an extent that it is no longer superior to ‘lossless’ digital formats (Wav, Flac , etc).

The world’s population is increasing, together with the world’s average wealth (Source: Global Wealth Report, Credit Suisse Research Institute, October 2011). The price of CD’s is not a limiting factor, as they are declining.

In recent years, numerous recordings have been re-released, with the marketing slogan: ‘Digitally Remastered’, with heavily compressed dynamic range. There have been numerous instances where I’ve purchased these CD’s, only to be disappointed with the sound quality, as older pressings are as good or superior to the remastered recording. I’m becoming disinclined to purchase any future remasterings, and I don’t think I’m the only one in this regard.

Consumers aren’t fools. It’s time the music industry treated their customers with some respect. The International Standards Organisation’s Quality Management Standards (e.g the ISO 9000 series) adopted by modern management systems around the world, require that feedback be sought from customers about the products sold to them, in order to measure the customer’s satisfaction. Which brings me to the next part of this post.


E) Audio Quality of Ultravox’s ‘Brilliant’


Audiophile equipment doesn’t come with bass or treble controls, as these processes introduce distortion to the musical signal, and isn’t representative of the music as recorded by the artist. The same is true of dynamic range compression. Many audiophiles consider that there should be a minimum number of components and processing from the recorded source to the loudspeaker, in order to preserve the integrity of the recorded music.

To those responsible for this effort in the Metropolis mastering studios: please take a CD from the mid-eighties to the mid-nineties and a current release/remaster of the same title. Compare the dynamic range through spectral analysers. But most of all, listen to the difference. Listen to the decay of a cymbal, a piano or violin note. Note the ‘air’ or ‘space’ of instrumentation and the definition of bass lines and drums. Vocals sound more natural.

I had such an experience when listening to the new Ultravox album: Brilliant. I’ve listened to it a dozen times on equipment I’ve described in a previous post. I then listened to a 20 year old CD of Ultravox’s ‘Revelation’. And sonically, it was just that.

From the opening track “I am Alive” the vocals and strings are well defined and vivid. The drums have a real ‘smack’ to them. Listen to the strings closing out the track. There is a sense of space and definition. The music sounds natural and it is a pleasure to listen to. It doesn’t feel contrived or processed. It’s transparent.

Take ‘Satellite’ from ‘Brilliant’ and compare Billy’s strings with those of ‘Revelation’, or Billy’s keyboard solo on “Rise’ (2:25-2.46) with that from ‘Systems of Love’ (3:10-3.40). There is a lack of definition and clarity on the recent recording. I invite you to make the comparisons I’ve just made. However, this is a general issue, not limited to these tracks, or these instruments.

The production and performance may be good, but is diminished by the less-than-sympathetic mastering. The vibrancy and sheer musical sophistication that is Ultravox has been veiled, and amounts to insulting the musical legacy of Ultravox and the intelligence and goodwill of music listeners.


F) Open letter to the music industry – by Dynamic Range Day


http://dynamicrangeday.co.uk/loudness-war-open-letter/

The commonly used term for dynamic range compression, ‘The Loudness Wars’ is a misnomer. The ‘Fidelity Wars’ would be closer to the mark. If the solution to this problem was as trivial as turning up the loudness volume (potential hearing damage aside) I wouldn’t be bothering with this. Dynamic range compression devalues the subtlety and nuances of music. The music is de-natured and veiled.

A danger from this trend is that artists may no longer value these musical qualities, because the mastering makes these harder to discern. This should give contemplation to the proponents of dynamic range compression. Please desist from this aural vandalism.

From 'Nothing but the Marvellous: The Wisdom of Henry Miller' (1991):-

"In the end I think of music as a saving grace for all humanity. As the universal language it transcends the boundaries of nationality, social strata and political ideology. Whether we are educated or uneducated, rich or poor, whether we speak the same tongue or not, we still posses the ability to communicate our feelings to one another through music. The world would be a terrible place without it. A miserable place."

I wouldn't worry about it, kids wander about listening to the latest pop hits on their phones with it's tinny sound, others will be listening to downloads/ripped cd's off their computers via 20-30 quid speakers and others via Alba and cheaper hi-fi's, I'd have thought not many people are that bothered about the issue and it ain't gonna kill anybody.

Looks (sounds?) like there might be some light at the end of the tunnel...

http://www.cepro.com/article/loudness_wars_coming_to_an_end/

I am so thoroughly sick to death of hearing sheeple complain about the "loudness wars" that it is no longer funny. Brick wall limiting makes everything sound better, end of story. Its why lots of us think that vinyl sounds better than digital recordings - because they have to limit the bejeesus out of things to get them onto a record (limitation of the medium).

Limiting has the effect of bringing all the subtlety out of a mix. Things that were hard to hear without really careful listening are suddenly right there where you want them. Of course, this can be a real headache for material recorded to tape as it will bring all the extraneous noise out, where compression has the opposite effect, but with modern equipment it is easy enough to reduce the noise without ruining everything else. Yes, it can make you a bit lazy when you are mixing but, as far as I'm concerned, it is just down to making the most efficient use of limited time. It also makes the most efficient use of the medium. I wouldn't release anything to the public without crushing the soul out of it first because it sounds very unbalanced until I do.

Seriously, if you get any normal rock recording and run it through a limiter, the temptation is to keep winding it on and on and on because it just sounds better and better, the more you do. It becomes very, very difficult to judge the best settings. I tend to put it on with a heavy hand, then wind it back to a point just before it starts to lose its punch. At the end of the day it is as much a creative decision as anything else, so as long as it is being made by the artist or producer, I don't see why anyone else should care. And if the artist/producer aren't the ones making those decisions, then clearly they don't care either, so, again, why should anyone else?

Hahaha - you are joking, right?

I'm a total ignoramus on this topic but The Anvil was mentioned in the OP and *that* is just an appalling quality CD. Even I can tell that.

Ahh the myth of the brick wall limiter.

Sorry mate but you are wrong, it tires the ears, there were tests done and an paper written up reagarding digital distortion, which not only ruins the recording but also wears on you to the point of the mind switching off in order to block out distorted/boosted frequencies.

Out of curiosity can you tell the difference between the mastering of The original Rage In Eden compared to Brilliant? do you prefer Brilliants mastering?
For 20 years I have mastered tracks in Abbey Road, (funnily enough i was so annoyed with the quality of mastering that was done there that I went and remastered it in my own studio) Sarm west, Battery studios, and in my own studio (which has Rupert Neve preamps and that full Steven Slate set up for mastering) and I will say this ANY ‘brick wall limiting’ ruins the original recording, if you think it brings things up in actual quality your wrong, it’s an illusion, to really do this all you have to do is re e.q. an original mix and turn the bloody thing up.

However...
Our label has produced loads of hits over the years and IF you produce dance music then you would want its loud as possible without care for the odd bit of distortion, simply put you have to compete with everyone else in clubs and if you are quieter you will fail, which then in turn has a a horrible knock on effect at radio as all the dance records will be much louder than all the tastefully mastered non rock tracks which in turn then forces labels to turn the volume up.
As an artist I don't dislike mastering I despise it however as a business man I need it, It’s a sad fact that for the above reasons that horrible limiting/mastering is here to stay.

Its hard to tell anything with Brilliant because I don't like the production much at all. Everything is too soft and rounded, all the hard edges having been abraded away. I am looking forward to hearing live recordings of these songs because I think they will sound much, much better. And when you say "the original Rage in Eden", do you mean the vinyl? Because the vinyl would have been compressed to buggery and I probably only ever listened to my copy once, while I recording it to cassette in 1981. If you mean the original CD, who knows what was done to that to get it off analogue tape?
At no point did I suggest that b/w limiting "brings quality up", what it brings up is the level of quieter elements (inevitably). Quite the opposite. As I said originally, it can expose unwanted noise and other irritants so, if anything, it can easily make low quality recordings sound worse. You can't create quality, it must be there in the original recording but you can take an average mix and improve upon it with good mastering skills, just as you can take an excellent mix and make it even better.
I have a mate who is the biggest music nut-job I have ever known. He is not an audiophile by any means but he loves his music and he spent 8 grand on a device that rips music to its internal HDD. His unbiased opinion is that it makes everything sound better. I got him to give me a demo and it makes everything sound better by putting a limiter on it all.
BTW, limiting does not distort anything when used correctly. In fact, its original purpose was to prevent distortion, so you'd really need to abuse it to create any.

Not at all, and I don't need to quote the entire post directly above when replying, either (see above).

it's getting hot in here !

Haha – me neither. The wonders of trying to send a post from a mobile phone eh?

My comment wasn’t meant as some sort of wind up - I did wonder at first whether you were joking, but now I can see that you weren’t. The reasons? Well, I thought that the statement “Brick wall limiting makes everything sound better, end of story” was too much of a definitive statement to be taken seriously for what is, essentially, personal opinions and taste - and you did go on to admit in another post that limiting can “easily make low quality recordings sound worse”.

With regards to vinyl – although there is a much smaller dynamic range available on vinyl than on CD, the reality is that the majority of music on vinyl actually has a greater dynamic range to that released on CD, much of which can be put down to the amount of compression/brickwalling/call it what you want that goes on to make CDs sound louder. You can get the same album on both formats and there is a noticeable difference sound wise between the vinyl and CD versions. Much as I love the Flaming Lips, some of the heavy compression on their CDs does my head in, so I ended up rebuying some of their stuff on vinyl, where there’s much more depth and subtlety in the sound (and, yes, I like subtle sounds to remain so in music, not pushed to the fore). So when people say they prefer the sound of music on vinyl, it may be that they prefer music to have a greater dynamic range.

Anyway, as I said, it's personal preference at the end of the day - what one person loves another hates (just look at the reviews for "Brilliant").