Chris A Posted March 25, 2015 Author Share Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Genesis (eponymous album) (Virgin Biem/Stemra GENCD1 00777 7 86436 2 3 --1983) The DR Database log file of the newly remastered tracks: foobar2000 1.3.3 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1log date: 2015-03-24 19:23:52--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Analyzed: Genesis / Genesis--------------------------------------------------------------------------------DR Peak RMS Duration Track--------------------------------------------------------------------------------DR15 -0.30 dB -19.18 dB 6:49 01-MamaDR16 -0.30 dB -17.93 dB 4:26 02-That's AllDR14 -0.30 dB -15.82 dB 5:08 03-Home By The SeaDR12 -0.30 dB -14.94 dB 6:07 04-SecondHome By The SeaDR14 -0.30 dB -16.05 dB 5:15 05-Illegal AlienDR15 -0.30 dB -16.88 dB 3:58 06-Taking It All Too HardDR13 -0.30 dB -15.18 dB 4:47 07-Just A Job To DoDR12 -0.30 dB -14.05 dB 4:30 08-Silver RainbowDR13 -0.30 dB -15.86 dB 5:01 09-It's Gonna Get Better--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Number of tracks: 9Official DR value: DR14Samplerate: 44100 HzChannels: 2Bits per sample: 16Bitrate: 846 kbpsCodec: FLAC================================================================================ Mama - Genesis.XML That's All - Genesis.XML Home By The Sea - Genesis.XML Second Home By The Sea - Genesis.XML Illegal Alien - Genesis.XML Taking It All Too Hard - Genesis.XML Just A Job To Do - Genesis.XML Silver Rainbow - Genesis.XML It's Gonna Get Better - Genesis.XML Edited March 25, 2015 by Chris A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted March 26, 2015 Author Share Posted March 26, 2015 The Very Best of Sting & the Police (A&M/UTV Records 069 493 252-2 -- 2002) The DR Database log file of the newly remastered tracks: foobar2000 1.3.3 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1log date: 2015-03-24 18:06:35--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Analyzed: Sting / The Very Best Of Sting & The Police--------------------------------------------------------------------------------DR Peak RMS Duration Track--------------------------------------------------------------------------------DR14 -0.30 dB -18.95 dB 4:51 01-Message In A BottleDR12 -0.30 dB -15.32 dB 3:00 02-Can't Stand Losing YouDR14 -0.30 dB -17.55 dB 4:28 03-Englishman In New York-1DR14 -0.30 dB -17.23 dB 4:13 04-Every Breath You Take-1DR14 -0.30 dB -18.98 dB 4:40 05-Seven DaysDR15 -0.30 dB -21.40 dB 5:04 06-Walking On The MoonDR14 -0.30 dB -15.79 dB 3:40 07-Fields Of Gold-1DR14 -0.30 dB -18.11 dB 3:55 08-Fragile-2DR12 -0.30 dB -15.38 dB 4:22 09-Every Little Thing She Does Is MagicDR14 -0.30 dB -17.37 dB 4:08 10-De Do Do Do, De Da Da DaDR13 -0.30 dB -14.71 dB 4:16 11-If You Love Somebody Set Them Free-1DR10 -0.30 dB -13.07 dB 6:22 12-Brand New DayDR9 -0.30 dB -12.03 dB 4:48 13-Desert RoseDR13 -0.30 dB -15.57 dB 4:31 14-If I Ever Lose My Faith In You-1DR13 -0.30 dB -16.07 dB 4:18 15-When We Dance-1DR16 -0.30 dB -19.95 dB 4:01 16-Don't Stand So Close To MeDR12 -0.30 dB -15.55 dB 3:10 17-Roxanne-1DR12 -0.30 dB -17.39 dB 4:48 18-So Lonely--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Number of tracks: 18Official DR value: DR13Samplerate: 44100 HzChannels: 2Bits per sample: 16Bitrate: 844 kbpsCodec: FLAC================================================================================ Can't Stand Losing You - Sting.XML Englishman in New York - Sting.XML Every Breath You Take - Sting.XML Seven Days - Sting.XML Walking on the Moon - Sting.XML Fields of Gold - Sting.XML Fragile - Sting.XML Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic - Sting.XML De Do Do Do De Da Da Da - Sting.XML If You Love Somebody Set Them Free - Sting.XML Brand New Day - Sting.XML Desert Rose - Sting.XML If I Ever Lose My Faith In You - Sting.XML When We Dance - Sting.XML Roxanne - Sting.XML So Lonely - Sting.XML Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted March 28, 2015 Author Share Posted March 28, 2015 Takin' It To The Streets - Doobie Brothers (Mobile Fidelity Sound Lab - UCSACD 2043) - PCM layer DR Database log file of the newly remastered tracks: foobar2000 1.3.3 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1log date: 2015-03-28 12:55:33--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Analyzed: THE DOOBIE BROTHERS / TAKIN' IT TO THE STREETS--------------------------------------------------------------------------------DR Peak RMS Duration Track--------------------------------------------------------------------------------DR14 -0.30 dB -17.44 dB 4:56 01-Wheels of FortuneDR14 -0.30 dB -17.68 dB 4:01 02-Takin' It to the StreetsDR12 -0.30 dB -15.21 dB 4:43 03-8th Avenue ShuffleDR15 -0.30 dB -17.30 dB 3:54 04-Losin' EndDR14 -0.30 dB -17.25 dB 3:51 05-RioDR14 -0.30 dB -17.25 dB 4:59 06-For Someone SpecialDR13 -0.30 dB -16.85 dB 4:23 07-It Keeps You Runnin'DR14 -0.30 dB -16.17 dB 3:55 08-Turn It LooseDR14 -0.30 dB -16.57 dB 4:12 09-Carry Me Away--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Number of tracks: 9Official DR value: DR14Samplerate: 44100 HzChannels: 2Bits per sample: 16Bitrate: 852 kbpsCodec: FLAC================================================================================ Wheels of Fortune - Doobie Bros.XML Takin' It to the Streets - Doobie Bros.XML 8th Avenue Shuffle - Doobie Bros.XML Losin' End - Doobie Bros.XML Rio - Doobie Bros.XML For Someone Special - Doobie Bros.XML It Keeps You Runnin - Doobie Bros.XML Turn It Loose - Doobie Bros.XML Carry Me Away - Doobie Bros.XML Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted March 29, 2015 Author Share Posted March 29, 2015 I Robot - The Alan Parsons Project (Arista ARCD 8040 - 1990) The DR Database log file of the newly remastered tracks: foobar2000 1.3.3 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1log date: 2015-03-29 15:04:03--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Analyzed: The Alan Parsons Project / I Robot--------------------------------------------------------------------------------DR Peak RMS Duration Track--------------------------------------------------------------------------------DR12 -0.30 dB -15.91 dB 6:02 01-I RobotDR13 -0.30 dB -16.20 dB 3:22 02-I Wouldn't Want To Be Like YouDR12 -0.30 dB -16.57 dB 4:06 03-Some Other TimeDR13 -0.30 dB -16.29 dB 3:53 04-BreakdownDR12 -0.30 dB -16.16 dB 4:24 05-Don't Let It ShowDR13 -0.30 dB -17.15 dB 5:24 06-The VoiceDR12 -7.00 dB -24.06 dB 3:22 07-NucleusDR13 -0.30 dB -16.14 dB 3:57 08-Day After Day (The Show Must Go On)DR15 -0.30 dB -21.30 dB 3:13 09-Total EclipseDR11 -0.30 dB -16.37 dB 3:25 10-Genesis Ch. 1 V. 32--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Number of tracks: 10Official DR value: DR13Samplerate: 44100 HzChannels: 2Bits per sample: 16Bitrate: 813 kbpsCodec: FLAC================================================================================ I Robot - The Allan Parsons Project.XML I Wouldnt Want To Be Like You - The Alan Parsons Project.XML Some Other Time - The Alan Parsons Project.XML Breakdown - The Alan Parsons Project.XML Dont Let It Show - The Alan Parsons Project.XML The Voice - The Alan Parsons Project.XML Nucleus - The Alan Parsons Project.XML Day After Day (The Show Must Go On) - The Alan Parsons Project.XML Total Ecplise - The Alan Parsons Project.XML Genesis Ch. 1 V. 32 - The Alan Parsons Project.XML Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 I'm actually surprised that you could hear any real changes from La Scala bass bins only, which really begin to roll off at ~70 Hz. All the changes in the Bromberg track are really below 50 Hz. This is actually good news if you do hear a difference.When I still had my LS, after pulling the mids down a bit, the whole balance was better. I could easily hear all the bass on Victor Wooten's bass on the Flecktones CDs. Granted, it wasn't booming, but was there and satisfying to me. Bruce All LaScala owners get to enjoy a +7 db peak at 140 hz., which Klipsch's chief engineer corrects with PEQ. You can't make a silk purs out of a sow's ear. ALL Klipsch speakers need a subwoofer, Danley Spuds or Super Spuds preferred. I'm just sayin' BUT I'm glad to hear that the EQ still improves the sound (to much lesser degree) in speakers with anemic bass, like a LaScala......says the Quarter Pie designer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted April 1, 2015 Author Share Posted April 1, 2015 As you might guess, there is a bit of a learning curve on remastering music tracks, even for something as benign as restoring tracks to their down-mix conditions (to the extent possible using Audacity: the use of multi-band compressors during original mastering is generally not reversible, for instance). For this album, I found that my original EQ curves weren't quite up to snuff, so I repeated the restoration from the original CD disc tracks, taking my time to correct more irregularities than I attempted to correct earlier. The following updated EQ curves bring out a great deal more out of this truly outstanding recording, and I wanted to share these updated curves with the online community, especially for comment. You will find a great deal more "liveness" present in these recordings on average than the prior EQ curves produced. Also note that the exact CD issue listed below is important (as it is with each posted set of EQ curves already posted here): using these EQ curves on tracks from other than the exact CD listed will be a hit-or-miss proposition (usually a miss, I might add). So if there is any question of the resulting sound of the updated tracks using these EQ curves, please check your exact CD issue to make sure that you are using the exact CDs listed. Come Away With Me - Norah Jones - all of the tracks... (Blue Note 7243 5 32088 2 0) The DR Database log file of the newly remastered tracks: foobar2000 1.3.3 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1 log date: 2015-04-01 11:00:30 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Analyzed: Norah Jones / Come Away With Me -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DR Peak RMS Duration Track -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DR13 -0.30 dB -16.26 dB 3:06 01-Don't Know Why DR12 -0.30 dB -16.10 dB 2:25 02-Seven Years DR12 -0.30 dB -14.57 dB 3:39 03-Cold Cold Heart DR13 -0.30 dB -15.57 dB 2:57 04-Feelin' The Same Way DR12 -0.30 dB -16.24 dB 3:18 05-Come Away With Me DR12 -0.30 dB -15.10 dB 3:57 06-Shoot The Moon DR13 -0.30 dB -15.98 dB 2:35 07-Turn Me On-1 DR12 -0.30 dB -15.10 dB 3:06 08-Lonestar DR16 -0.30 dB -18.67 dB 4:13 09-I've Got To See You Again DR14 -0.30 dB -18.55 dB 2:42 10-Painter Song DR15 -0.30 dB -18.29 dB 3:06 11-One Flight Down DR10 -0.30 dB -14.79 dB 4:12 12-Nightingale DR14 -0.30 dB -17.58 dB 2:45 13-The Long Day Is Over DR13 -0.30 dB -17.87 dB 3:08 14-The Nearness Of You -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of tracks: 14 Official DR value: DR13 Samplerate: 44100 Hz Channels: 2 Bits per sample: 16 Bitrate: 707 kbps Codec: FLAC ================================================================================ Don't Know Why - Norah Jones.XML Seven Years - Norah Jones.XML Cold Cold Heart - Norah Jones.XML Feelin' The Same Way - Norah Jones.XML Come Away With Me - Norah Jones.XML Shoot the Moon - Noarh Jones.XML Turn Me On - Norah Jones.XML Lonestar - Norah Jones.XML I've Got To See You Again - Norah Jones.XML Painter Song - Norah Jones.XML One Flight Down - Norah Jones.XML Nightingale - Norah Jones.XML The Long Day Is Over - Norah Jones.XML The Nearness Of You - Norah Jones.XML Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted April 5, 2015 Author Share Posted April 5, 2015 Not Too Late - Norah Jones (CAPP 044 SA 2012 SACD from Analogue Productions - PCM layer) The DR Database log file of the newly remastered tracks: foobar2000 1.3.3 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1log date: 2015-04-03 10:34:18--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Analyzed: Norah Jones / Not Too Late -SACD--------------------------------------------------------------------------------DR Peak RMS Duration Track--------------------------------------------------------------------------------DR13 -0.30 dB -18.19 dB 4:19 01-Wish I Could SACDDR15 -0.30 dB -18.76 dB 4:38 02-Sinkin' Soon SACDDR12 -0.30 dB -15.72 dB 3:00 03-The Sun Doesn't Like You SACDDR13 -0.30 dB -16.79 dB 3:55 04-Until The End SACDDR13 -0.30 dB -17.33 dB 2:55 05-Not My Friend SACDDR13 -0.30 dB -15.67 dB 3:34 06-Thinking About You SACDDR15 -0.30 dB -18.89 dB 3:20 07-Broken SACDDR13 -0.30 dB -18.76 dB 3:25 08-My Dear Country SACDDR14 -0.30 dB -17.77 dB 2:47 09-Wake Me Up SACDDR12 -0.30 dB -14.11 dB 3:36 10-Be My Somebody SACDDR13 -0.30 dB -16.46 dB 2:44 11-Little Room SACDDR12 -0.30 dB -16.30 dB 3:56 12-Rosie's Lullaby SACDDR13 -0.30 dB -17.70 dB 3:36 13-Not Too Late SACD--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Number of tracks: 13Official DR value: DR13Samplerate: 44100 HzChannels: 2Bits per sample: 16Bitrate: 722 kbpsCodec: FLAC================================================================================ Wish I Could SACD - Norah Jones.XML Sinkin Soon SACD - Norah Jones.XML The Sun Doesn't Like You SACD - Norah Jones.XML Until The End SACD - Norah Jones.XML Not My Friend SACD - Norah Jones.XML Thinking About You SACD - Norah Jones.XML Broken SACD - Norah Jones.XML My Dear Country SACD - Norah Jones.XML Wake Me Up SACD - Norah Jones.XML Be My Somebody SACD - Norah Jones.XML Little Room SACD - Norah Jones.XML Rosie's Lullaby SACD - Norah Jones.XML Not Too Late SACD - Norah Jones.XML Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted April 16, 2015 Author Share Posted April 16, 2015 At mastering, if everything was done properly at mixing, they just sequence, edit, put in fades and cut flat. More likely, something is not 100% and can be improved with eq. As I have progressed through my music tracks, remastering them as I go, I've come to focus on this statement (and a big thanks to Travis for making it and the resulting insights that have been gained from it). I've personally found a great deal of tracks that have been EQed oddly and have found massive problems with trying to fix them myself, instead choosing to abandon any further work on them since it is clear that the underlying mixes or even just the recording of individual instrument tracks have what I would call "fatal flaws". You'd be somewhat amazed how well some of the mastering jobs have done to cover it up. I'm amazed in some cases, I know. One thing stands out from all of this: outstanding tracks come from outstanding recordings of each instrument in outstanding venues (acoustically), and it's easy to hear the best recordings both before and after remastering them-quality stands out. I've also found that virtually all mastering engineers find it impossible or otherwise reputation threatening to not put their mark on each track, and almost always, each track has been tweaked separately from every other track on every album. The list of exceptions to this rule seem to be less than 1% of the total population of discs that I've analyzed and corrected. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted April 16, 2015 Author Share Posted April 16, 2015 On 1/31/2015 at 9:51 AM, dwilawyer said: What you are observing has been known and talked about for a number of years on the recording, mixing and mastering forums, and the Hoffman forum. This is something that I haven't seen, actually. In fact, I've done some searching on this and have actually found so very little actual discussion on specifics, and most of what I did find was very cursory and without anything quantitative at all, and certainly nothing that shows the breadth and depth of the problems. In my opinion, every disc that enters my collection now will go through a remastering process - the problem I've found to be so pervasive that it goes without saying that something on at least every track has problems that need to be addressed. I've found it much better to address the problems at the outset to fix them so I don't have to ever deal with them again. Otherwise, other methods of doing EQ at playback time are wasting time over and over, correcting the same mistakes again and again. It's much better to correct the problem as close to the source as possible--and be done with it. My wife commented right out of the blue recently, saying: Quote "I'm sure glad you've worked on our music the way that you have. It sounds so much better, and it never hurts to listen to it - even when we turn it up. Everything sounds so much clearer and more natural" Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 Not Too Late - Norah Jones (CAPP 044 SA 2012 SACD from Analogue Productions - PCM layer) The DR Database log file of the newly remastered tracks: foobar2000 1.3.3 / Dynamic Range Meter 1.1.1 log date: 2015-04-03 10:34:18 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Analyzed: Norah Jones / Not Too Late -SACD -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just to be clear... this is NOT the DSD layer... it is the CD red book layer, correct? I'm wondering if you converted the DSD layer perhaps so you could play with the EQ on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted April 16, 2015 Author Share Posted April 16, 2015 (edited) I do not presently own a PS3 (with OS vers.3.55 or lower) to rip DSD files from SACDs, so yes, you're looking at the LPCM layer on that Norah Jones SACD. However, I have reason to believe that the PCM layer and the DSD layer will be essentially the same in terms of EQ curves. When I acquire said PS3 or some other SACD ripping device (and there is at least one DIY drive in development, but at a very slow rate of development), I'll be happy to let you know about the EQ curves as applied to the DSD layers on that disc. However, that may be a while. Chris Edited April 16, 2015 by Chris A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted April 16, 2015 Share Posted April 16, 2015 That would be very interesting! I'm enough of a cynic that I will not be surprised to find that they mess with the PCM layer to make it sound worse than the DSD layer and make more of a dramatic sounding difference between the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted April 17, 2015 Author Share Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) That's more than possible. I've experienced a difference myself on three Yellowjacket SACDs--albeit they are hybrid multichannel SACDs: 5.1 or 5.0 on the DSD layer and 2.0 on the PCM layer. Jimmy Haslet's bass playing on the DSD layers on those three hybrid SACDs is immediately noticeable on the DSD layers as well as significantly lower track gain than the PCM layers--the hallmark of any high-dynamic-range tracks. The reason why I suspect that they're the same on the Norah Jones Not Too Late SACD (2012 Analogue Productions) is that actual DSD mastering tools came onto the marketplace for the first time about 2011-2012. I suspect what this disc really has on it are two sets of stereo tracks in different formats but derived from the same source tracks. I'll take a listen on my disc player to both sets of tracks (an Oppo BDP103). Usually, any difference heard is immediately apparent on the bass frequencies below 100 Hz, which this disc has in spades with Lee Alexander's bass. Any extra mastering equalization always shows up as extra bass attenuation below 100 Hz. Chris Edited April 17, 2015 by Chris A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizRotus Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 Chris- This thread is fascinating, although much of it is way over my head. If I missed an answer to this question, I apologize. Do good high resolution digital files from Pono, HDTracks, LINN and the like need, or benefit from, what you're describing? The same question regarding vinyl. I'm in the process of ripping vinyl (mostly older stuff not available on CD or MP3) to FLAC files. Should I be massaging the resulting FLAC files as you've done with CDs? I know you can't turn lead into gold, but are the older (pre CD loudness wars) recordings still a problem? Other than the ripping process, I may never handle physical media again. Thanks for sharing your efforts and your expertise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted April 17, 2015 Author Share Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) Do good high resolution digital files from Pono, HDTracks, LINN and the like need, or benefit from, what you're describing? The same question regarding vinyl. I can't definitively answer your first question (although I certainly have enough information already to place a bet), at least until I download some tracks from one of the high def online stores and have a look. I plan do this in the near future. Your second question is one that I've been anticipating about for some time now. The answer is of course, "yes", especially the lack of bass below 100 Hz and highs above 7kHz. Almost all phonograph records (vinyl or otherwise) have severe limitations on what can be put on them at the frequency extremes, else the needle jumps out of the groove or otherwise fails to faithfully follow the wiggling spiral groove. The reason for the really big RIAA equalization curve is due to this limitation of phonograph records in terms of recording latitude, analogous to significantly reduced color space in photography. Some people like reduced color space in photography, but I've found most people dislike it and would rather have a bigger color gamut. Once you rip the tracks and correct for equalization, I find that the often stated advantage of analog recordings/format disappears. Don't be alarmed: to me this is only a statement of the generally poor state of mastering practices that are taken for granted in the industry, having little to do with recording medium itself except for the limitations imposed by that medium. In my experience, the reason why phonograph records might sound better than digital discs (to many people) is that they cannot be abused like digital formats--abused in terms of equalization and other forms of "enhancement" using mastering practices. These mastering processes include compression coupled with creative equalization to: 1) always make the tracks sound "louder" on systems without automatic gain controls (i.e., all hand-held digital music players and computers playing digital music now have AGCs), 2) hide recording and mixing errors, or 3) mastering to make the resulting mix sound just like a table radio--all midrange and nothing on the ends of the spectrum. Apparently, few people actually have reasonably good sound reproduction systems - instead using ear buds and mp3 files on iPods. Once you level the playing field by "unequalizaing" digital/digitized tracks, the recovered tracks sound indistinguishable from really good analog tape recorders--except perhaps tape hiss or ticks and pops of a phonograph needle sliding across a record surface. Chris Edited April 17, 2015 by Chris A 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muel Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 There are songs that still sound strange to me when I hear them WITHOUT the familiar ticks or pops to which I had grown accustomed years ago. With some music I'm not sure I have ever heard it without the ticks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizRotus Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) Do good high resolution digital files from Pono, HDTracks, LINN and the like need, or benefit from, what you're describing? The same question regarding vinyl. I can't definitively answer your first question (although I certainly have enough information already to place a bet), at least until I download some tracks from one of the high def online stores and have a look. I plan do this in the near future. Your second question is one that I've been anticipating about for some time now. The answer is of course, "yes", especially the lack of bass below 100 Hz and highs above 7kHz. Almost all phonograph records (vinyl or otherwise) have severe limitations on what can be put on them at the frequency extremes, else the needle jumps out of the groove or otherwise fails to faithfully follow the wiggling spiral groove. The reason for the really big RIAA equalization curve is due to this limitation of phonograph records in terms of recording latitude, analogous to significantly reduced color space in photography. Some people like reduced color space in photography, but I've found most people dislike it and would rather have a bigger color gamut. Once you rip the tracks and correct for equalization, I find that the often stated advantage of analog recordings/format disappears. Don't be alarmed: to me this is only a statement of the generally poor state of mastering practices that are taken for granted in the industry, having little to do with recording medium itself except for the limitations imposed by that medium. In my experience, the reason why phonograph records might sound better than digital discs (to many people) is that they cannot be abused like digital formats--abused in terms of equalization and other forms of "enhancement" using mastering practices. These mastering processes include compression coupled with creative equalization to: 1) always make the tracks sound "louder" on systems without automatic gain controls (i.e., all hand-held digital music players and computers playing digital music now have AGCs), 2) hide recording and mixing errors, or 3) mastering to make the resulting mix sound just like a table radio--all midrange and nothing on the ends of the spectrum. Apparently, few people actually have reasonably good sound reproduction systems - instead using ear buds and mp3 files on iPods. Once you level the playing field by "unequalizaing" digital/digitized tracks, the recovered tracks sound indistinguishable from really good analog tape recorders--except perhaps tape hiss or ticks and pops of a phonograph needle sliding across a record surface. Chris Chris- Thanks for the prompt and thorough reply. If you spin vinyl, you definitely need some of the "goop" described in Dave Mallette's thread: https://community.klipsch.com/index.php?/topic/155914-bjesus-a-miracleby-dizrotus/ If you're interested, I'll see that you get some. You've earned it. I definitely need to read this thread again thoroughly. Since I'm using Audacity to rip vinyl to FLAC, I might as well check the results for the EQ issues. Edited April 18, 2015 by DizRotus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted April 17, 2015 Author Share Posted April 17, 2015 (edited) By the way, the following article got me to thinking a bit more about the current Loudness War defenders: Learn the Loudness War’s dirty little secret After thinking about the situation at most companies and enterprises, this kind of "memetic behavior" isn't very difficult to find. Most companies have a body of beliefs that gives the people in those enterprises a feeling of confidence that they know what they're doing. The truth is they really don't understand where the value is and what is voodoo. This isn't something that most enterprises like to talk about--the stuff that they've accepted as truth, but really doesn't matter at all to the customer. I believe that the music recording business is full of this kind of behavior because the people in the industry don't really have a lot of time to develop true expertise, or they cling to those beliefs that maximize the money coming to them personally, but that don't do the paying customer any good. Even the musicians themselves usually don't understand why certain of their compositions are hits and others aren't--in fact, many musicians that I've seen push compositions that the public doesn't really like very much. YMMV. Edited April 23, 2015 by Chris A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feezelbum Posted April 17, 2015 Share Posted April 17, 2015 There are some other observations and implications of this exercise: The "harshness" of Klipsch loudspeakers relative to other loudspeaker brands can now be explained - and it's not the fault of the loudspeaker, but the select music tracks (with treble boost) that is played on them. Kudos to Klipsch for not trying to "EQ their loudspeakers" to compensate for the generally poor mastering and quality of released popular music tracks. The tendency for many people here to be satisfied with only La Scala and Belle bass performance can now be explained: the low bass that these two bass bin types cannot reproduce well has typically been removed from popular music tracks to begin with. I find that many people are astounded by having good low bass available to them--like first hearing Khorns with a good recording that doesn't have low bass attenuation. I've noticed that Khorn owners prefer listening to the type of music typically doesn't have mastering "fixes" on the tracks, i.e., mostly classical but also some notable jazz recordings from the cool/bebop era (1950s-60s). This type of music shows the real advantage of owning Khorns, which easily reproduce cleanly down to 31 Hz. All this popular music mastering foolishness described above begins to explain all of this. I believe that we've got generations of folks that are used to hearing "canned music" that has these two characteristics - and many of those people like to think of themselves as "audiophiles" on other forums and owning other brands of loudspeakers, etc. YMMV. It is now clear that there are many "closet EQers" that are boosting their low frequencies--pretty much all the time. There is a get-out-of-jail-free-card reason why they have been doing this--and for a very long time, indeed. It's going to be interesting to see what happens when it becomes clear that audiophiles can recover at least some of the fidelity lost by popular mastering practices over the years. Will these listeners prefer to hear their old recordings mastered more naturally (and much less harshly) or will they continue to listen to their old recordings stoically unchanged to the insights above? Perhaps now the "anti-EQ audiophile crowd" will begin to see why digital EQ/restoration is actually their friend, and necessary for hearing true "hi-fi". Chris First off, thanks for this thread. A great read that has brought to me a better understanding of how, and why I listening to music the way that I do. While I make no claim to being an audiophile by any stretch of the definition, I have developed a very particular ear over the years. I have been using an equalizer ever since I purchased my first "true" stereo system back in the early 90's (Yamaha GE-3, which I still have and use to this day). I had for the most part found my "middle ground" settings which I have used with little to no variation for over 20 years. I use(d) the typical sweep pattern - high on the lows, flat to low on the mids, moderately high on the highs, and the loudness feature on my receiver to boost bass response. I now suspect my dependency on equalization is in part due the mastering process, which you have discussed. Low frequencies for me are essential. Since having purchased my RF-7ii's, I have experienced quite a bit of harshness in the high frequencies on certain recordings, typically when switching from live to studio formats, and occasionally between different artists on studio recordings. I didn't experience this with my older (inferior) Kenwood speakers, and find myself frequently readjusting my eq to compensate for this. Something I have not ever had to do. As of late, I have been spending most of my free time cataloguing my >2TB worth of music files. It's been a long and painful process, that I brought upon myself for being lazy in the past. I'm anxious to start the re-mastering experiment once I'm done! Again, thanks for a great read! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang guy Posted May 16, 2015 Share Posted May 16, 2015 Chris, do you suppose there might be somebody out there watching this thread who uses your remastering technique and provides the music for stream or purchase? If there isn't, I think there should be. I've seen it mentioned many times that this thread is over most folk's heads. Why should every individual have to go into their own version of every song, when an expert like you could process the song once and provide that remastered version to all. Frankly, I could see a team of people with your training remastering everything. As much as this is a business opportunity, that is not why I am bringing this up. I just think it's a collective waste of time and resources for 50 million people to make their own remastered copy of 1 song. Why not just have that song sitting out there? Remastering is not ground breaking technology, but your hypothesis is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.