Music Lover vs. Audiophile

[oldtimer]

It's only knocked from the examples we have.  The music itself is not knocked unless BigStew gets involved...

[DizRotus]

IIRC. this entire album (Rumours by Fleetwood Mac, first released in 1977) is mastered approximately 9-12 dB too hot at 8 kHz and linearly tapering off down to about 1 kHz (among other "mastering enhancements", except for Go Your Own Way, which was attenuated on the top end).  The only real mistake is "The Chain" which was clearly mixed with the voices too attenuated relative to the surrounding instrumentation.

 

This is actually a difficult album to master well due to the exposed nature of the instrumentation and the dynamic range retained.  It is clear that the album was recorded in multitrack - you can hear it in each voice/instrument.

 

Once the tracks are remastered, this is a very good sounding album...the version that I have (1990) has a corrected DR Database rating of 15 (i.e., a crest factor of about 15 dB average for all tracks across the album)--which is spectacular for a popular album of that time and genre.  It's a pleasure to listen to after careful remastering, IMO-retaining much of the true dynamics of the instruments without huge amounts of compression used.  It was simply mastered way too hot and with some low bass attenuation for those "east coast sound" loudspeakers of the 1970s.

 

I hate to see such an album knocked on the forum due to lack of information about its poor mastering but relatively good recording and mixing.

 

Chris

 

Chris-

 

My Pono Hi-Res version of Rumours sounds very good to me.  I sent you a PM.

[Jim Naseum]

What's the catalog number for the remastered, good sounding one? (Rumors)

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

[oldtimer]

If you decide to do a search I think the name is Rumours.  A small detail that thank allah I was able to overcome my crappy public education to distinguish.

[Chris A]

What's the catalog number for the remastered, good sounding one? (Rumors)

 

Well, I find that you have to do some work on a good, highly dynamic version that hasn't been compressed.  Start with something with the highest DR Rating numbers from here (click on each one to see their identifiers):

 

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/year?artist=Fleetwood+Mac&album=Rumours

 

Any album listed with a DR rating of 14 or 15 is a good start.  I have the following version (...and there are apparently many good versions...): http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/view/9235

 

Then I've found that you have to remaster your tracks in order to undo what their poor mastering processes did to them.  Here is the cumulative frequency response curve for the lead track (Second Hand News) before correction:

 

 

Here is a correction curve for the first track, Second Hand News, that I used:

 

 

And the resulting frequency response curve:

 

 

The first track is actually one of the better tracks on that album in terms of its as-is (uncorrected) state.  Other tracks on the album require more correction. (Most rock albums typically have each track custom mastered using different EQ curves for each track--something that's typically not true for classical music albums--and that fact requires more time/effort to undo the poor mastering for popular and rock albums, unfortunately.)

 

The resulting track is much more listenable, IMO.

 

Note that the practices of the 1970s-80s sometimes included such devices in the mixing process as "Aphex Aural Exciters" which are multi-function patented signal processors that were used on the vocal tracks only--including on this album.  I've found that these units produce a bit of an annoying set of time-varying harmonics (mostly even harmonics, but in huge quantities), EQ, and delay based on what the vocal part is doing at each moment in time.  There is no way to undo the Aphex Aural Exciter effects to my knowledge, but many people find the effect to be not as unpleasant as I find it to be.  I also find that--the better the playback fidelity--the more objectionable the effect seems to be.  YMMV.

 

Chris

Edited September 17, 2015 by Chris A

[wvu80]

And somebody is going to say I don’t like music because I really like rap? I don’t get it.

 

I would also tell people that rap is "not music," but I use that phrase tongue-in-cheek, not literally. 

 

It is more accurate, again speaking in general terms, that rap is not good music.  I know, who am I to define "good?"  That is a valid point.

 

Again in general, rap is repetitious, monotone, has no instrumentation dynamics, no vocal dynamics, and requires almost zero musical talent to make.  Anyone can play quarter notes.

 

But to counter my own argument, have you ever seen the number of hits that rap songs get on Youtube videos?  It's in the millions, and you can find much more "musical" songs which only get to tens of thousands of views.

 

Music is where you find it, and is in the ear of the listener.

[wvu80]

 

Yes, sir.  Been there done that, and here is the result.  Let me know what you think.  Bear in mind this was originally in 24/192 and so is dumbed down...  Not sure if the link will take you directly to St. James Infirmary or not, but scroll down if it doesn't.  Let me know what you think. 

 

Dave

 

 

Very interesting, Dave.  Reading your blog gave me some insight into some of the things you've posted, especially your position on the need for 4-speaker sound.  I get it now.

 

Have you ever seen this this Turtle Beach headphone video regarding that?  Even though they get the 4-speaker effect with 2 speaker headphones, it supports your position of the desirability of 4-speaker setup.

 

Edited September 17, 2015 by wvu80

[Mallette]

Not in a good place to look/listen to that at the moment, but will do so this evening at home. 

 

As to surround, I've been the "...voice of one crying in the wilderness..." for years about that.  What I have written is generally met with skepticism, which isn't surprising given the generally godawful and at best gimmicky and artificial sounding musical material released in surround. 

 

The SoundCube approach DOES work, including height information when produced as I've described.  While it's only been demonstrated to a handful of people all were amazed.  My favorite reaction was that of my daughter to the ambient recording I made a few years ago in our front yard.  A helicopter flew over towards the end and as she sat in the living room and it approached she looked up at the ceiling as if to follow it across! 

 

However, that approach really only works for audiophiles/music lovers given that there is a definite "sweet spot" involved just as with 2 channel.  The upside is that it is twice as large...but nonetheless it's a limitation for the masses. 

 

Atmos is promising.  If you dug back a few years in 2 channel you'd find a post I made proposing just such an object based system.  As I outlined in the post you read, the most natural surround is achieved by providing the brain the location information it needs and letting it handle the processing as it is a very complex job as the various surround hardware has clearly demonstrated over the years.  Atmos is the first to reach a sophistication level that, in the hands of good engineers, promises a truly satisfying musical experience.  If other systems are an indicator, software to allow experimenters like me to encode Atmos isn't very likely for a long time.  I'd be interested in determining if one of my SoundCube recordings would be directly encodeable to it without further processing.  I tried it with Dolby Prologic to DVD-A and the results were not satisfying.  Imaging was blurred and diffuse compared to the discrete playback.  I've searched in vane for a universal multiple stream file format for years.  I keep hearing there is one but can't find anything to create one.  Easy enough to save a more than 2 channel file in Audacity and such, but it's proprietary.  I need to be able to save to wav or flac for playback by some of the players that claim surround playback capability. 

 

May do another search.  It's been a year or so since my last attempt. 

 

For the moment Atmos and object oriented formats hold some promise.  I hope to experiment with SoundCube more starting next year when I retire to my Regional Music Heritage Center project.

 

Dave

[Jim Naseum]

If you decide to do a search I think the name is Rumours. A small detail that thank allah I was able to overcome my crappy public education to distinguish.

Snap!!!! Dude!

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Jim Naseum]

Mr. Chris,

Thanks. My mistake. I thought you were referring to a commercial re-release of the album. Interesting to read how you remaster them. Thanks for the linkage.

Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk

[Paducah Home Theater]

There are a bunch of people on the forum who would brush their records and post about the sound but spend little time listening, because they could not enjoy it unless every thing is/was perfect.  A fetish if you will.

It's textbook OCD is what it is.

[Mallette]

Chris, I'd really like to visit you sometime and get a briefing on your EQ methodology.  Lived in Flower Mound for 18 years and we had a pretty good circle of "hornheads" up there.  I was also deeply involved with the classical music crowd there and most of my recordings were made in DFW.

 

Anyway, my best friend still lives in Flower Mound and while I don't get up there much I think he'd enjoy it as well.

 

Dave

[Paducah Home Theater]

In my opinion Rap has no melody

Do you know what a melody is?

[Paducah Home Theater]

Again in general, rap is repetitious, monotone, has no instrumentation dynamics, no vocal dynamics, and requires almost zero musical talent to make.  Anyone can play quarter notes.

Have you ever heard Billy Joe Armstrong sing? Zero vocal dynamics. Hell as far as that goes, I think Rhianna is the same way yet she is hailed as a great singer.

I hate to sound racist but to me, there is normal and fun rap, and there is black rap. Black rap primarily exists to regurgitate black culture. Black rap is what you hear when some hooptie rolls up on 22's at the gas station in east St. Louis. It's awful stuff. It isn't compatible with the rap that I like. Look at Young M.C. from back around 1990. College educated guy, thoughtful lyrics, and he couldn't sell records because the inner city didn't understand what phrases like "don't hang yourself with a celibate rope" means. I really enjoy stuff like that, it's clean, thoughtful, and fun. The inner city, not so much.

Good rap in general to me is like a lyrical chess game. It's poetry that's mixed to a fun beat. I really enjoy songs with pop culture references as well. Take Hypnotize by Biggie Smalls for instance... Cabbage, Timbs, gators, Underroos, Starsky and Hutch, DKNY, Moschino, Coogi, Frank White, hidden reference to Christopher Walken, Richie Rich... plus consider the way he intertwines everything... not exactly mindless.

Edited September 17, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters

[Ski Bum]

I hate to sound racist but to me, there is normal and fun rap, and there is black rap.

 

If it's Black on Both Sides you should really give it a chance. 

[vindeville]

And somebody is going to say I don’t like music because I really like rap? I don’t get it.

I would also tell people that rap is "not music," but I use that phrase tongue-in-cheek, not literally.

It is more accurate, again speaking in general terms, that rap is not good music. I know, who am I to define "good?" That is a valid point.

Again in general, rap is repetitious, monotone, has no instrumentation dynamics, no vocal dynamics, and requires almost zero musical talent to make. Anyone can play quarter notes.

But to counter my own argument, have you ever seen the number of hits that rap songs get on Youtube videos? It's in the millions, and you can find much more "musical" songs which only get to tens of thousands of views.

Music is where you find it, and is in the ear of the listener.

This is similar my thinking on rap as well. I said earlier that straight rap has no melody which is a key element that make music music. Most generally the only time you hear a melody in rap is when a "sample" of a traditionally structured song is inserted. Those in particular strike me as a perfect side by side example of music vs rhythmic spoken word ( monotone with no pitch changes). Not my cup of tea but if you like it you like it. As far as popularity goes there are many people and things that are popular in this country that have no merit to me. yeah booooy! uh ... uh... uh..... Edited September 17, 2015 by vindeville

[ClaudeJ1]

I just won’t listen to Fleetwood Mac--a man has to maintain some standards.

 

Does that mean with Peter Green or with the chick singers? New or old Meatwood Flac? 

[BigStewMan]

 

I just won’t listen to Fleetwood Mac--a man has to maintain some standards.

 

Does that mean with Peter Green or with the chick singers? New or old Meatwood Flac? 

 

Interesting.  You're the second person that has asked me that very question.  Our late forum friend Boxx asked me that and urged me to listen to some old fleetwood mac.  Honestly, i've never checked out their history.  I know when they did the song/album TUSK, i said that I officially couldn't stand them.  I'm going to guess that's "new" Fleetwood Mac???

[Max2]

IIRC. this entire album (Rumours by Fleetwood Mac, first released in 1977) is mastered approximately 9-12 dB too hot at 8 kHz and linearly tapering off down to about 1 kHz (among other "mastering enhancements", except for Go Your Own Way, which was attenuated on the top end).  The only real mistake is "The Chain" which was clearly mixed with the voices too attenuated relative to the surrounding instrumentation.

 

This is actually a difficult album to master well due to the exposed nature of the instrumentation and the dynamic range retained.  It is clear that the album was recorded in multitrack - you can hear it in each voice/instrument.

 

Once the tracks are remastered, this is a very good sounding album...the version that I have (1990) has a corrected DR Database rating of 15 (i.e., a crest factor of about 15 dB average for all tracks across the album)--which is spectacular for a popular album of that time and genre.  It's a pleasure to listen to after careful remastering, IMO-retaining much of the true dynamics of the instruments without huge amounts of compression used.  It was simply mastered way too hot and with some low bass attenuation for those "east coast sound" loudspeakers of the 1970s.

 

I hate to see such an album knocked on the forum due to lack of information about its poor mastering but relatively good recording and mixing.

 

Chris

 

 

I think overall its pretty decent too.  It is heard best on DVDA, IMO.

[Chris A]

Chris, I'd really like to visit you sometime and get a briefing on your EQ methodology.  Lived in Flower Mound for 18 years and we had a pretty good circle of "hornheads" up there.  I was also deeply involved with the classical music crowd there and most of my recordings were made in DFW.

 

Anyway, my best friend still lives in Flower Mound and while I don't get up there much I think he'd enjoy it as well.

 

Dave

 

Understand - I used to own a house in Alief (a.k.a., west Houston for the rest of the folks that don't know the geography) that I had to visit once or twice a year to maintain for more than a dozen years - and it's a pretty long drive up I-45 (~6 hours).  You're very welcome to stop by anytime - as I'm here most of the time: remastering is a daily routine presently.

 

Sometime in the near future, I'm planning to create a YouTube tutorial video or two--and that might also help.  I have to wait until the WAF isn't here to have quiet time for recording and editing the video(s). 

 

I've found that there are just a few tricks that work, but mostly it's just looking closely at the plots and a little ear training to find the issues hiding in each track.  The rest is pretty much in the realm of an old recording guy....

 

For others that might be interested in remastering your music: it's a lot of fun.  It will allow you create real value that is presently hiding in your music collection and it costs nothing but time.  The sound quality improvement ranks at or above getting really good loudspeakers, second to nothing else in terms of SQ improvement.  Try it!

 

Chris

Edited September 17, 2015 by Chris A