Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 94 of 94

Thread: Why Re-Releases and Newer Rock Could Sound SO Much Better (Audio Samples Inside).

  1. #76
    WeatherWiseCDC
    Guest
    This just popped up on YouTube, so I'll share it with you guys. This is the new 2015 Japanese SHM-CD release of Roxy Music's Avalon, which uses a brand new 2014 DSD remaster.



    I've never heard the album sound as good as this. It sounds fantastic. This is the description on CDJapan's website:

    http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/product/UICY-40129
    Cardboard sleeve reissue from Roxy Music features Platinum SHM-CD format and HR cutting from the 2014 DSD master, using the UK original analog master. Comes with an obi faithfully replicating the one in the Japanese edition LP. This series features the following albums "Roxy Music," "For Your Pleasure," "Stranded," "Country Life," "Siren," "Manifesto," "Flesh And Blood," "Avalon."
    All of the Roxy Music albums have been remastered, as the description above notes. Some of the recent Universal Music Japan remasters (2012 to current) have been stellar. They've made it a priority with some of their releases to remaster as well as possible to ensure the highest quality, and it has paid off tremendously.

    Somebody here has compiled a list of the SHM remasters he has heard so far, and has listed them in various categories in relation to the other versions of those albums available. Those in the "outstanding" category destroy all other versions, while those in the "good" category still very much trump all other versions. Some in the outstanding category that prog fans will love are the Tangerine Dream and Mike Oldfield albums. The difference can be heard immediately.

    http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...#post-11958550
    Last edited by WeatherWiseCDC; 03-28-2015 at 04:35 AM.

  2. #77
    Member Steve F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Fluffy Cloud
    Posts
    5,635
    Quote Originally Posted by WeatherWiseCDC View Post

    I've never heard the album sound as good as this. It sounds fantastic.
    You've never heard the album sound as good as a stream over your computer from YouTube?
    Steve F.

    www.waysidemusic.com
    www.cuneiformrecords.com

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    “Remember, if it doesn't say "Cuneiform," it's not prog!” - THE Jed Levin

    Any time any one speaks to me about any musical project, the one absolute given is "it will not make big money". [tip of the hat to HK]

    "Death to false 'support the scene' prog!"

    please add 'imo' wherever you like, to avoid offending those easily offended.

  3. #78
    WeatherWiseCDC
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve F. View Post
    You've never heard the album sound as good as a stream over your computer from YouTube?
    I'm clearly referring to the actual CD audio, Steve. The album is available to order from the CD Japan website. That said, as discussed earlier in this thread, the better the input, the better the output. That stream up there is better than any other YouTube version you'll find, and the sonic qualities unearthed in the mastering process should be more audible than other versions of the album in that same format. YouTube converts the audio to 320 kbps AAC audio, but it's probably the best-sounding 320 kbps version of the album you'll hear. I think very little on YouTube will sound as good as the samples I've posted. A well-mastered version of an album compressed to 320 kbps will sound better than a poorly-mastered version of an album treated the same way.

    I've posted the Audio Fidelity version of Elton John's "Daniel" here already (I think in the OP). The song sounds completely different from the standard release even in its lossy AAC format. The mastering process is crucial to the sound of the final release. You can still hear how much punchier that song is (relative to other versions in the same format).

    Compare.





    The crummy sound of the second video probably has a little to do with the encoding of the video before it was uploaded, but that principle still applies -- the better the input, the better the output.
    Last edited by WeatherWiseCDC; 03-28-2015 at 06:51 AM.

  4. #79
    WeatherWiseCDC
    Guest




    The second one sounds like it had a bit of equalization done and was slowed down a touch. It also doesn't sound as clear.

  5. #80
    Member Steve F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Fluffy Cloud
    Posts
    5,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve F. View Post
    You've never heard the album sound as good as a stream over your computer from YouTube?
    Quote Originally Posted by WeatherWiseCDC View Post
    I'm clearly referring to the actual CD audio, Steve.
    My sincere apologies, but it wasn't clear to me and people have said goofier stuff about sound, imo.
    Steve F.

    www.waysidemusic.com
    www.cuneiformrecords.com

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    “Remember, if it doesn't say "Cuneiform," it's not prog!” - THE Jed Levin

    Any time any one speaks to me about any musical project, the one absolute given is "it will not make big money". [tip of the hat to HK]

    "Death to false 'support the scene' prog!"

    please add 'imo' wherever you like, to avoid offending those easily offended.

  6. #81
    WeatherWiseCDC
    Guest




    I could go on and on...

  7. #82
    WeatherWiseCDC
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve F. View Post
    My sincere apologies, but it wasn't clear to me and people have said goofier stuff about sound, imo.
    No worries, Steve! I want people to have the opportunity to hear the difference, which is what this thread is all about. Awareness is important. It all starts with hearing the difference on YouTube because you can even tell on that platform when you hear multiple versions of a song in the same format. If only the music industry realized that better mastering even results in better-sounding MP3s! There's no reason they shouldn't be putting more care into the mastering process (and, for new music, the mixing process).

  8. #83
    Member Steve F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Fluffy Cloud
    Posts
    5,635
    ^ ^ ^ ^

    Right.

    The problem is that as long as listening to stuff streaming on Spotify or YouTube satisfies a good percentage of listeners (it does for enough listeners that I was mis-led by your post and thinking you were talking about how good the stream on YouTube sounded) and the money from those streams remain what they are (nearly enough to zero to count as zero, imo), they won't put the care into it you are looking for, because care costs money, and whether you like the industry or don't like the industry, the industry is really hurting financially.
    Steve F.

    www.waysidemusic.com
    www.cuneiformrecords.com

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    “Remember, if it doesn't say "Cuneiform," it's not prog!” - THE Jed Levin

    Any time any one speaks to me about any musical project, the one absolute given is "it will not make big money". [tip of the hat to HK]

    "Death to false 'support the scene' prog!"

    please add 'imo' wherever you like, to avoid offending those easily offended.

  9. #84
    WeatherWiseCDC
    Guest
    Have a listen to this version of the Carpenters' best-selling compilation album, The Singles: 1969-1973. This is one of the best-sounding SHM-CDs out there. The YouTube version sounds pretty damn good for the AAC format.


  10. #85
    WeatherWiseCDC
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve F. View Post
    ^ ^ ^ ^

    Right.

    The problem is that as long as listening to stuff streaming on Spotify or YouTube satisfies a good percentage of listeners (it does for enough listeners that I was mis-led by your post and thinking you were talking about how good the stream on YouTube sounded) and the money from those streams remain what they are (nearly enough to zero to count as zero, imo), they won't put the care into it you are looking for, because care costs money, and whether you like the industry or don't like the industry, the industry is really hurting financially.
    I'm not sure I totally buy that notion, Steve. A mixing engineer and mastering engineer are needed regardless. When engineers are called in to remaster albums, the intention is to make the album sound better, but in recent years the preferred practices have generally made the remasters sound worse. Tom Scholz wanted to remaster Boston so that it would sound better. He ended up butchering the remaster, turning it into a loud, harsh, muffled, compressed mess. The Chicago remasters from Rhino are brickwalled, meanwhile. I don't think more money would have made Nick Davis go in the opposite direction and give us a minimalistic transfer of the original Genesis tapes. He probably spent more time and effort remixing than he would have if he had just walked in and remastered without tinkering with all of the tracks needlessly. He has remastered the Genesis catalog twice now (1994 + 2007). Not surprisingly, it will probably be Universal Music Japan that gives us the Genesis remasters we want. They've been on a roll with Tangerine Dream, Mike Oldfield, Gentle Giant, Wishbone Ash, Roxy Music, Supertramp, etc, etc. They've been remastering tons of albums over the past few years.

    I don't know why we have to rely on them while we could just get it right the first time (with new releases) or the second time (with remasters). Some albums were well-mastered right from the start (i.e. Christopher Cross, Appetite For Destruction, etc); some albums were mastered so well that not even audiophile remasters are of any improvement. Others, like Eric Clapton's Pilgrim, didn't sound very good in their initial release, but in their audiophile remaster sound far better. It's a matter of execution rather than an issue of money.

    With modern releases, the issue is both with mixing and mastering in many cases. Rush ended up remixing 2002's Vapor Trails in 2013 because it was overly compressed. People in the industry seem to think that brickwall limiting albums and mixing everything to be loud makes MP3s sound better. It's been a major trend. I've read some bands say this outright. Triumph recently did a Greatest Hits: Remixed album that is brickwalled, loud, and lacking the nuances of the original mixes: Gil Moore hinted that it was the first step towards making the music sound better on mobile and on new playback devices... yet the album was released on CD! I don't think he's referring to hi-res audio because that had been a thing for about a decade before the 2011 Triumph remix album.



    Plus, we've proved with these examples above that better mastering gives us better-sounding MP3s. The idea that compressing makes MP3s sound better is a total myth. Better-sounding phones are going to have better DACs, which will in turn reveal the limitations of poor mixes and poor mastering efforts. The DAC converts the audio to analog signals, the signals go through headphones, and the sound is heard by the listener. This is nothing new. "Mixing for mobile" is a philosophy with no rational basis. It's founded on misunderstandings. All digital audio is converted; a transducer (i.e. a speaker or headphones) makes it audible to the human ear. The industry seems to have its understanding of quality backwards.
    Last edited by WeatherWiseCDC; 03-28-2015 at 08:32 AM.

  11. #86
    Member Steve F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Fluffy Cloud
    Posts
    5,635
    ^ ^ ^ ^

    All the examples you use, both good and bad, are 3rd, 4th & 5th time reissues of old albums by popular legacy artists.

    There's always an audience (at least some) to buy these albums yet again, that will help pay for that expensive mastering invoice, especially when they retail at $40 & $50 a pop and there's no development costs, no advertising costs, just the publishing and royalties....and the eager, truly interested to buy them.

    That's all well and good and it doesn't disprove your point. If that's where your musical interest lies, then I think it's great you are buying these superior versions and are enjoying them.

    But it also doesn't necessarily bode well for music being made and released now. Which is where much of my interest lies. YMMV
    Steve F.

    www.waysidemusic.com
    www.cuneiformrecords.com

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    “Remember, if it doesn't say "Cuneiform," it's not prog!” - THE Jed Levin

    Any time any one speaks to me about any musical project, the one absolute given is "it will not make big money". [tip of the hat to HK]

    "Death to false 'support the scene' prog!"

    please add 'imo' wherever you like, to avoid offending those easily offended.

  12. #87
    chalkpie
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by WeatherWiseCDC View Post
    Not surprisingly, it will probably be the Japanese company that gives us the Genesis remasters we want. They've been on a roll with Tangerine Dream, Mike Oldfield, Gentle Giant, Wishbone Ash, Roxy Music, Supertramp, etc, etc.
    There is no need for any more Genesis remasters - actually there was never any need in the first place. I followed Jeff's advice a few years back and tracked down either the original Virgin/Charisma, Atlantic, and/or MCA (Trespass) original CD pressings and they put the Nick Davis batch and the 90's Definitive remasters to shame (the exception being 'Wind' in which the Definitive 90's version is the go-to if memory serves me). Go track down the Virgin/Charisma of "Foxtrot" and you'll see what I mean - that sucker is *definitive* (if you are talking digital stereo at least).

  13. #88
    For me, the studio as instrument and engineer as artist are exemplified by the work of Rudy van Gelder for Blue Note. It's certainly a personal choice of mine, but no other engineer has ever come close to replicating the ear of van Gelder when it comes to a warm and immediate sound for Jazz music. I can recognize a van Gelder engineered album without much effort, well, partly because he was so prolific, but also because there is that moment when my senses are just captured by the music. I feel pulled into the recording. No need for 5.1 surround because somehow van Gelder creates a theater of the mind with his work.
    Mongrel dog soils actor's feet

  14. #89
    WeatherWiseCDC
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by chalkpie View Post
    There is no need for any more Genesis remasters - actually there was never any need in the first place. I followed Jeff's advice a few years back and tracked down either the original Virgin/Charisma, Atlantic, and/or MCA (Trespass) original CD pressings and they put the Nick Davis batch and the 90's Definitive remasters to shame (the exception being 'Wind' in which the Definitive 90's version is the go-to if memory serves me). Go track down the Virgin/Charisma of "Foxtrot" and you'll see what I mean - that sucker is *definitive* (if you are talking digital stereo at least).
    Barry Diament, who remastered the Atlantic Duke, A Trick of the Tail, and numerous other Genesis albums for Atlantic, actually said that better versions of some of the albums can be done. In fact, a far superior version of SEBTP, which would put the V/C to shame, was shelved. Not all of his masters were released.

    I've heard the original Trespass. Both versions --the V/C and MCA -- are disappointing. They are major improvements over the 1994 and 2007 remasters, though! Improvements definitely can be made! They always can be.

    http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...0#post-2549278
    Quote Originally Posted by Gardo
    Just found an Atco original issue CD of SEBPT, and last night I did a shootout with the DE. The Atco was much better, to my ears. The downside is that it doesn't sound like a first-gen tape master: I hear a slight thinning of the textures that I associate with a second-gen. master. I also be there's a little more top-octave sparkle in the original tapes, as the Atco sounds a tiny bit rolled off up there. Otherwise, though, the Atco sounds very, very nice. Big and deep soundstage, very natural-sounding instruments and voices, and an exciting dynamic range.

    By contrast, the DE is way too processed, and the comparison really points this out. There's a bass boost in the EQ that puts some sludge in the drums. But that's not a dealbreaker. The real reason I won't listen to this one again is the top end boost, which turns Gabriel's sibilants into whistles at times and makes all the cymbals sound tizzy and unpleasant. Worst of all, when the top-end boost hits the NR, some strange and unpleasant things result. Example. One of my favorite Genesis tracks is "Cinema Show." The Atco sounds lovely on this track. The DE screws it up. The delicate opening is vital for the song's mood. Listen to the little bicycle bell at the end of the first verse:

    <ring>Can she be <ring> late for her <triangle hit> Cinema Show?

    The bicycle bell is a little sonic grace note in the Atco. In the DE, it's way too present. But the worst moment is when the triangle comes in. On the Atco it sounds sweet and true. On the DE, the EQ collides with the NR and the result is so smeared that it's hard to tell what's making that bright sound.

    I sure wish Barry's mastering of these tapes had seen the light of day, but since they didn't, it's now the Atco for me.:thumbsup: Now to find the other originals (except for W&W), all of which I traded in years ago, of course.
    http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...0#post-2549975
    Quote Originally Posted by bdiament
    Hi Gardo,

    I do too. "Selling England By The Pound", along with "Abacab", may have had the potential for the greatest sonic gains over the original CD releases.

    I remember smiling a lot when working on both of these. The "Selling England..." tapes I had revealed the severe loss of clarity and air on the old CD release -almost like someone left the Dolby engaged for a non-Dolby tape, then filtered the bottom few octaves' breath away. That album just opened up on the version I did.

    "Abacab" might have shown the greatest gains of all. Those mixes were wonderful and so much of their "life" was missing on the CD version(s) I've heard.

    Maybe one day...

    Best regards,
    Barry
    www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
    www.barrydiamentaudio.com

    http://forums.stevehoffman.tv/thread...0#post-2550537
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Carney
    I've always wondered about this, Barry, because the original discs of Selling England have an extraordinarily low amount of hiss. Even if they recorded that album Dolby A, I think something went wrong in the transfer.

    But it does beat the 1994 DE remaster.

    And yes folks, in this case, the UK Virgin/Charisma and the Atco are the exact same.
    Last edited by WeatherWiseCDC; 03-28-2015 at 08:45 AM.

  15. #90
    WeatherWiseCDC
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve F. View Post
    ^ ^ ^ ^

    All the examples you use, both good and bad, are 3rd, 4th & 5th time reissues of old albums by popular legacy artists.

    There's always an audience (at least some) to buy these albums yet again, that will help pay for that expensive mastering invoice, especially when they retail at $40 & $50 a pop and there's no development costs, no advertising costs, just the publishing and royalties....and the eager, truly interested to buy them.

    That's all well and good and it doesn't disprove your point. If that's where your musical interest lies, then I think it's great you are buying these superior versions and are enjoying them.

    But it also doesn't necessarily bode well for music being made and released now. Which is where much of my interest lies. YMMV
    The 2009 remaster of Beck's Sea Change is among the best. Who knows why it couldn't have been released that way the first time. Those who don't necessarily have the opportunity to have an album re-released should try to get it right the first time because that version will stay with them forever.

    Also, Audio Fidelity did Eric Clapton's 1997 album Pilgrim just last year. Many called it a very daring re-release. I don't know how many people thought Pilgrim was a good enough album to buy a second time. The difference in sound quality, though, makes it worth it. It should have been done right the first time.

  16. #91
    WeatherWiseCDC
    Guest
    You guys might like this one.


  17. #92
    WeatherWiseCDC
    Guest
    Have a listen to this as well. You won't find any version of Dire Straits' self-titled debut album that beats the 2014 DSD remaster.

    Last edited by WeatherWiseCDC; 03-28-2015 at 10:50 AM.

  18. #93
    WeatherWiseCDC
    Guest
    Jon Anderson's Olias Of Sunhillow recently got the audiophile remastering treatment.


  19. #94
    WeatherWiseCDC
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve F. View Post
    ^ ^ ^ ^

    All the examples you use, both good and bad, are 3rd, 4th & 5th time reissues of old albums by popular legacy artists.

    There's always an audience (at least some) to buy these albums yet again, that will help pay for that expensive mastering invoice, especially when they retail at $40 & $50 a pop and there's no development costs, no advertising costs, just the publishing and royalties....and the eager, truly interested to buy them.

    That's all well and good and it doesn't disprove your point. If that's where your musical interest lies, then I think it's great you are buying these superior versions and are enjoying them.

    But it also doesn't necessarily bode well for music being made and released now. Which is where much of my interest lies. YMMV
    I want to add, also, that some of the most successful modern bands right now in the music industry have some terrible-sounding albums. Mentioned earlier in this thread is Coldplay's Ghost Stories, which is extremely compressed and has no life. The acoustic instruments sound flat; the instruments don't breathe. They have some of the best engineers in the business and some of the best production technology available to them.



    The dynamic range rating of this album is a pitiful 6 on a scale of 20. It's in the red.

    Imagine Dragons' Night Visions has a DR rating of 4! It sounds like garbage.



    One Direction's Four has a DR rating of 5.



    These bands have all of the resources available to them in order to polish their albums. This is not about money; it's about execution, philosophy. The industry has the wrong philosophy. An album should have a DR rating of at least 10 to sound all right. Albums used to have average DR ratings of about 13 to 15 just across the board! Guess what -- they all sound way better than what we're getting these days from a lot of bands. It's inexcusable.

    The 2015 Platinum SHM of Avalon has a DR rating of 13, with a max of 15.
    The Audio Fidelity version of Eric Clapton's Pilgrim, which features manufactured drumming, has a DR rating of 12, with a max of 16.
    The Audio Fidelity version of Olias of Sunhillow has a rating of 12, with a max of 13.

    The original vinyl for ELO's Time, which is a fairly flat album, boasts a DR rating of 12, with a max of 15. The original Japanese CD pressing of Discovery has a DR rating of 14. You would think the ELO sounds is not very dynamic, but it really is.
    Last edited by WeatherWiseCDC; 03-29-2015 at 02:33 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •